OPERA THEATER INK

The “Moo-Cow Serenade” is like
Vi-Jon’s Magnesium Citrate Recall

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

The “Moo—Cow Serenade”
is being composed right now by me at the same time I am writing this opinion piece on the magnesium citrate solution recall by Vi-Jon, for the Vi-Jon company is actually the lone cow.

Vi-Jon LLC has recalled thousands of bottles of magnesium citrate saline solution throughout the world. Yet only three instances of bacterial contamination from gluconacetobacter liquefaciens have been reported to date, but the company has declared a voluntary recall of all flavors and most lot numbers, to show its consumer concern and advocacy. The recall began more than a month ago with expanded lot numbers and flavors added—and no replacement dates included.

Vi-Jon LLC seems to have a monopoly on the product, as if it were a lone cow with a monopoly on all the milk production in the land, for the company has recalled all the magnesium citrate solution it produces from all the major drug stores and pharmacies it services, where the product has been placed in bottles with brand names featured on the bottles, including CVS, Walgreens and Rite Aid, as well as Major, Leader, Swan, Equate, Equaline, Good Sense, Kroger, Sunmark, and others, which are distributed to markets and smaller pharmacies throughout the United States, Panama and Canada.

Can you imagine one cow producing so much milk that it is packaged in cartons reading Knudsen’s, Horizon, Organic Valley, Stonyfield, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, and more — so that if ONE brand were contaminated, so would they all be?

Those may be hypothetical comparisons, but think about it: Many poor little babies would be deprived of their milk.

Well, that is exactly what Vi-Jon has done with magnesium citrate solution. It is simply not available.

I am a 75-year-old consumer with Parkinson’s Disease. Magnesium Citrate solution was recommended to me by my gastroenterologist five years ago when I was in the hospital. The product is used as a prep before procedures or by taking a reduced amount when necessary. Magnesium is good for muscles, bones and nerves,, and for flexibility.

As a senior citizen taking Carbidopa-Levodopa, to reduce my ongoing motor symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease, the recall has impacted me greatly, but I have not been sick from any contamination.

I have tried to find a substitute brand, but cannot. Most pharmacists have returned the recalled bottles. One actually told me that she would send her remaining bottles back to Vi-Jon rather than risk losing her license by selling them to me. As a consumer, I would rather risk the side-effects of taking the recalled item than risk the challenges of not taking it when indicated, or experimenting with a new product altogether.

So I therefore must ask: Why does one company have a monopoly on the distribution of one product? Especially when it is a simple and inexpensive product like magnesium citrate solution, which could be purchased uncontaminated if produced by more companies?

I have not gotten sick after injesting more than 10 recalled bottles that were in my possession. I “have” had difficulties opening the caps on some of the bottles, however, and have used steaming hot water and knives to screw off the tops. The hot water could have created the contamination, I assume. But then I am not a scientist and do not know the reasons inherent in my dilemma.

I only know that with all of the modern-day drugs and cures and Covid vaccines, I “should” be able to buy something as simple as pure, uncontaminated magnesium citrate solution somewhere. But after calling half the drug stores in Los Angeles County and beyond—I cannot.

Long Beach Opera is a Creative Company that Honors Diversity

Photo: Long Beach Opera – Artistic Director, James Darrah

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

Now that we are in the anti-racism phase of American history after the horrible murder of George Floyd and countless rallies shouting in support of Black Lives Matter — there has been an attempt to level the playing field and honor diversity in the American work force by enabling people of all races and religions to have equal job opportunities. Yet it appears that some of the people who have attained the jobs, don’t want them.

Yes, it has been a rough road, especially for blacks, who have a history in slavery. But they are now finally on every television show and in every film. And they are talented.

Still, now I have read about three articles in the L.A. Times on Long Beach Opera, which has hired black people in various positions, yet some have left their jobs because they find it difficult to work on the job site. They believe they were hired simply to meet some kind of quota, rather than for what they can offer the company due to their talents.

Yes, change is difficult and very slow-moving. These staff members might not like my response, but just a few years ago, they might not have been given the opportunities they have been given recently. So in my opinion, and this is an opinion-kind of article by someone who is an opera-lover and opera critic — I believe that no one should throw away any opportunity because times change, and each of us must grab on to opportunities when they arise because they may not come again. New members to the Long Beach Opera staff should not have quit their jobs, but should have embraced them. They should have worked hard to prove that they are the most valuable artists to the company, and the most qualified for their jobs.

I know that Long Beach Opera is one of the most creative companies in existence. The operas presented are usually not the norm. The company rarely presents operas that the attendees probably have heard of. And then these operas usually are presented in a very creative manner that some other company might not be able to perform.

The production design is always extremely creative and sometimes gorgeous. Which brings me to the new artistic head of the company, James Darrah.
.
I read that he is again Caucasian and will not talk to members of the press— that he is halting the diversity of the company.

I have known James Darrah for about 12 years. I met him at UCLA where he was a graduate student at a performance in MacGowen Hall. I read that he had married a talented mezzo-soprano there, who has graduated and gone on to sing at LA Opera and Long Beach Opera under its former director, Andreas Mitisek. At any rate, it appears that James Darrah now lives with someone else and is bi-sexual. So does not Mr. Darrah now meet the qualifications for diversifying the staff?

He, Mr. Darrah, is a quiet man, from what I remember, and no one could be better-suited or more qualified as an artistic director than he is, because his set design is usually stunning. So although Jennifer Rivera is quoted as having said that she did not plan to hire a Caucasian as the next artistic director of Long Beach Opera when Mr. Mitisek left and went to Chicago — in my mind, she has chosen the best possible person for the job. And he “has“ diversified the company.

So please readers — if you want to see something different, please drive out to see a production at Long Beach Opera. If you look hard enough, you may even find a production close-by in a parking lot of your local synagogue, or you may see a reading of a play being performed by actors in a local theater as a pre-curser to one of the upcoming Long Beach Opera productions, like I once did, which starred the renowned actor, Michael York, who is, by-the-way, an opera buff.

So I ask all people of all races and religions to embrace their new-found opportunities in the workplace, and to work hard to maintain them.

I am a minority as I am the daughter of Viennese Holocaust survivors. I am also a semi-retired opera critic. What can I say? I love opera. I love hearing the best artist for every role, and I loved hearing the voice of Leontyne Price singing “Aida,” and the voice of Marian Anderson when she sang Schubert Lieder, including the song about the little trout, “Die Forelle,” which I heard her sing so many times as a child, that I sat on the record and broke it.

Plus nothing could please me more than to hear “Porgy and Bess” sung with a black cast of main characters like Eric Owens and Angel Blue.

Now is the time to be black in America. Do not throw away any opportunity because you think you are entitled. Every opportunity is a gift. Believe me, at 75, I know. So embrace them.

Gone With the Wind: Not Quite

Placido Domingo in LA Opera’s “Luisa Fernanda” in 2007

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

It is amazing to me that the artist who has given his life to the Los Angeles Opera could be totally and utterly “Gone With the Wind” to the company that owes most of its successes to him. How soon we forget!

Just four months ago, Plácido Domingo announced that he would be stepping down as the general director of LA Opera when he was accused of harassing some women at various companies, with only a few of the women giving their names out or going on record. Most of the cited occurrences happened many years ago, but since the birth of the #MeToo movement, the occurrences now seemed pertinent for the Associated Press, the LA Times and some American opera companies to address.

I have written numerous commentaries on the issue.

Domingo is an artist and is being unduly almost banned from singing in the United States, whereas in Europe, he is welcomed as the artist he is and praised for his operatic accomplishments.

Unlike Domingo, other opera singers have been labeled with similar lusts, including a non-singer, the president of the United States, but their careers have not been affected.

Domingo has not been charged with any crimes. Verbally asking a woman if she had to go home that night, is hardly an offense. Nothing has been proven, and Domingo has denied a great deal of the accusations.

What matters to me is that Plácido Domingo is a great, great tenor. He will go down in the history books as such. LA Opera owes him more than can be described here, yet as the company announced its 2020-2021 season on a press release dated Jan. 26, it is as if Domingo had died. And the strange thing is that opera season schedules are planned years in advance, so four months hardly would be enough time to delete Domingo from the 2020-21 season at hand. Yet the CEO of LA Opera, Christopher Koelsch, spoke about the upcoming season as if he was the responsible planner on the press release. At least that is what the LA Times wrote, since I was not in attendance when Koelsch announced the season but read the information on a press release. Koelsch did plan and has been responsible for the day-to-day operations of LA Opera for years, but he was not the visual focal point of the company to the public. Domingo was. So I would assume that Domingo was responsible for bringing various star performers to the company’s 2020-2021 roster, and for selecting some of the works scheduled to be performed.

So I guess that when artists die or have been accused of something, they are forgotten. Not so in the case of so many of Domingo’s peers, one being Luciano Pavarotti. But then it may be even more difficult to be alive and see what is happening to your own career in the light of injustice. I personally am grateful to the opera goers in the European countries for their loyalty to Maestro Domingo.

THE 2020-2021 SEASON:

That said, the upcoming LA Opera season looks inventive, creative and extensive.

The new production of “Il Trovatore” starring soprano Angel Blue promises to be a winning opening. Blue is said to be a “superstar soprano” in the press release.

Not yet, but almost.

Blue will have many audience members applauding her because she has really come full circle. I met Blue when she was studying voice from great baritone Vladimir Chernov at UCLA. She went on to be mentored by Domingo in the LA Opera young artist program. Domingo took her under his wing and sang with her all over Europe. She has garnered much support along the way over the last 10 years from artists who saw her potential. She has worked hard and recently sang Bess in “Porgy and Bess” at the Metropolitan Opera to rave reviews in newspapers including the New York Times. Now she is coming home to LA Opera to star in its opening of “Il Trovatore” in the 2020-21 season. Her potential is great, and she is on the road to becoming a soprano superstar. She is a young talented soprano who is a beautiful person and singer both inside and out, and everyone who knows her and has followed her career is very proud of her.

Other artists of the season include tenor Gregory Kunde, Issacheh Savage in Wagner’s “Tannhäuser,” Roberto Abbado conducting Stefan Herheim’s production of “La Cenerentola,” Ildebrando D’Arcangelo starring in Mozart’s “Don Giovanni,” Francesca Zambello directing Verdi’s “Aida,” Harry Bicket conducting the revival of Handel’s baroque “Tamerlano,” and Missy Mazzoli breaking the bounds of new opera with her “Breaking the Waves.”

In addition, longtime great soprano Renée Fleming, a regular at LA Opera, will sing in concert with baritone Rod Gilfry in “The Brightness of Light.” Other performances Off Grand and where LA Opera Connects will also be performed, including “In Our Daughter’s Eyes,” with baritone Nathan Gunn who hasn’t received much acknowledgement on this press release roster, but whose singing and acting were magnificent in LA Opera’s “Magic Flute” a number of years back. He was one of the best Papaganos I have ever heard or seen .

With that said, it is an exciting season to be sure, filled with the old and new. James Conlon will once again conduct a brilliant revival of “Tannhäuser.” The production as I recall it was artistically arresting.

“Breaking the Waves” will be conducted by Grant Gershon and directed by the innovative and creatively masterful James Darrah.

But who really is responsible for the exciting LA Opera season is not discernable: maybe a combination of both Koelsch and Domingo with a little bit of Conlon mixed in. Domingo has said often that he loves LA Opera. It is possible that he has chosen to stay in the background so that the company will move forward in his absence. I cannot imagine the pressures he must have had when he felt obliged to step away from the company he nurtured to maturity.

I only know one thing: Plácido Domingo cannot be forgotten in Los Angeles or by LA Opera. He has left his artistic imprint on the walls of the Music Center and the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, and they cannot be erased.

For more information about the LA Opera 2020-21 season, go to www.LAOpera.org.

TEARS!

Placido Domingo in LA Opera’s
“El Gato Montes: The Wildcat”
(Photo: Cory Weaver)

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

Almost immediately after my “Love Letter to LA Opera” was posted, Plácido Domingo resigned as general director of the Los Angeles Opera. He also will not be performing in “Roberto Devereux” in February.

He did the only thing he could have done. He wrote a beautiful statement to the New York Times virtually thanking LA Opera and wishing the company well. He will concentrate his efforts in Europe. I am very sad, but he did the right thing.

President and Chief Executive Christopher Koelsch will stay to handle the operations of LA Opera.

The investigation will remain in force, which in my mind was a slap in the face to Domingo in the first place. But the fact that it is continuing enrages me even more. It remains a front so that LA Opera can show the world that it is doing the right thing with a politically correct approach. The company could have let others do the investigation, like the union. It is a slap in the face to Domingo who has led the company for years. It is a slap in the face to the general director they supposedly revered.

Domingo was removed from his duties as general director soon after the Associated Press came out with the first story of accusations pending the results of the investigation. Another slap in the face. He was involved in the scheduling and casting of this season and subsequent seasons since calendars are scheduled years in advance. This was another front by LA Opera to show that the company was being proactive.

After other companies in the United States wrongfully canceled his engagements, he was forced to leave the Metropolitan Opera last week. The Met handled the situation all wrong. Please read my prior commentary on Peter Gelb, who held a meeting of chorus singers and orchestra members who complained they felt “awkward” performing with Domingo on the stage. Domingo was pushed out and according to a statement by the Met, “agreed” to leave.

He is right to never again perform in Los Angeles and probably anywhere in the United States. It was like he was attacked by a bunch of ravishing dogs. The women accusers were not the only vultures. The press was. The first woman barely accused him of anything, and AP went in for the kill. Then the second woman accused him and AP went in for the kill again. All the news organizations ran with the story. And, voilà, Domingo’s career was in flames after more than 50 years of being Plácido Domingo.

He had worked so hard to raise the status of LA Opera. He had planned to remain general director of the company after he retired from singing. What a jolt when all his hard work just seemed to go up in smoke unexpectedly after AP ran with the mostly anonymous accusers’ story.

Mark Swed of the Los Angeles Times had Domingo gone in his commentary almost two weeks ago. He even had the new general director chosen. How dare the press act as a human resources department and create the news.

And the photos on the LA Opera website of “Roberto Devereux” show that they were from a production at San Francisco Opera. Yes, the LA Opera brochure says it is a company premiere, but it is not an LA Opera production. In tiny letters at the bottom of the page in the brochure, it says it is a Canadian Opera Company production originally owned by the Dallas Opera. Stephen Lawless staged the production in San Francisco and is set to direct the one in Los Angeles. Both San Francisco Opera and Dallas Opera canceled Domingo’s engagements almost the day the AP story broke.

Yes, Domingo did the right thing. I would want to spit venom on the LA Opera stage rather than perform in that production on that stage.

But Domingo took the high road with his statement. I don’t have to. What has happened to Domingo is a travesty and a horrible comment on the press and our society.

Now that Domingo has done what the Times wanted, Swed wrote a front-page story that reads like an obituary. It is all very nice and lists Domingo’s roles throughout the years, and points out his landmark positions in Los Angeles history. It was so clear early on that the LA Times was leading Domingo to the watering trough, but with this article, which is a look back at his career with a few lackluster compliments mixed in, I think that the Times has probably covered itself from encountering any potential illegalities.

I do not know if Domingo has grounds for a defamation libel lawsuit against various press organizations and the state senator who called for his removal from the Met without cause. He would have to prove damages based on intent. I wish he would have grounds, but that is between him and his attorneys.

He was accused with anonymous accusations. The press ran with the juicy story that fit conveniently into the goals of the #MeToo movement with anonymous attributions. And LA Opera has no qualms about continuing with its agenda. Bravo to Domingo for getting out in such a timely fashion.

And if LA Opera thinks it will rise to the occasion, its board members are wrong. Oh, yes, the LA Times will say that LA Opera will thrive, but it won’t. Mark my words. The company will never get another named artist like Plácido Domingo to act as its general director. Even if an artist with a name were considering the position, that artist would look disloyal to Domingo and would most likely never apply.

I spoke to a former member of the board of directors, wanting to know why he left the board. I didn’t get much of a response, but I did hear the sentence: “Everyone knows that Christopher Koelsch has been running LA Opera for years.” Or maybe it was: “Everyone knows that Christopher Koelsch runs LA Opera.”

Yes, well, the contributors are giving the money to LA Opera because of Domingo, not Koelsch. And this particular ex-board member told me that he got tired of spending the money it took to remain on the board due to the amount of productions being performed.

Briefly, to recap LA Opera’s history: LA Opera was run by Edgar Baitzel. He died and there was no one to run the company on a day-to-day basis. Stephen Rountree gave up some of his tasks with the Music Center to become the interim person to run the company.

Plácido Domingo had been the artistic director and then became the general director.

But LA Opera has not been like other companies. Other companies usually do not have a general director who is a major artist whose name helps the company succeed. So when a general director normally leaves a company, if the next general director has a good record of management, that general director can enhance that companies stature.

But in the case of LA Opera, there is NO ONE who can do for the company what Plácido Domingo has done for it.

I wrote a story years ago that Domingo should become artistic consultant and that another person should run the day-to-day operations of the company since Domingo was out singing and conducting for much of the year. LA Opera kept Domingo as general director and Christopher Koelsch eventually moved up the ranks to be that day-to-day person with the title of president and chief executive. The problem was solved.

But there have been other problems along the way.

The “Ring” with “Ring Festival LA” was a drain on the company’s budget.

People like Eli Broad and others were giving millions of dollars to make the production of the “Ring” possible. As I wrote previously, once a company has produced the “Ring,” it has arrived. The festival was a means to enhance tourism in Los Angeles and was billed as the largest festival Los Angeles has ever had. I thought the festival was a separate entity to the “Ring” production, but the production became part of the festival somewhere along the way.

I discovered that the festival was basically a Richard Wagner festival, since it basically honored the composer of the “Ring,” who was a known anti-Semite and racist.

I thought that the opera people didn’t know about the politicians’ intolerance of anti-Semitism and racism in Los Angeles, and that the politicians didn’t know about Wagner and his views. I wanted to help, but I got a swift kick in the pants.

I first went to a major political consulting firm in Los Angeles for help. The firm’s head was interested but learned that another PR firm had been contracted.

I wanted to see the biggest arts festival in Los Angeles that the city had ever had. I wanted to see banners up and down La Cienega Boulevard which, at the time, had numerous art galleries. I wanted all the little theaters to also be involved with their shows and I wanted the theater companies to decorate their theaters with banners that read: “Ring Festival LA.” I wanted all the arts to come together to create this massive festival that would have brought in tourists.

But somewhere along the way, I was branded as being out-of-touch.

Retired LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich was sensitive to my concerns since LA County finances the Music Center. But he limited what I had in my mind as an arts festival and only presented a motion to include other composers with Wagner as part of the festivities.

Well, the press heard that and went to town on the supervisor who meant well and was headed in the right direction, but just didn’t quite hit enough of the right notes. Had that motion passed, the supervisor would have no doubt expanded the original version to include more of the arts, but it didn’t pass.

Just about the only fair press I received was when David Suissa of the Jewish Journal interviewed me. He lived up the street and came over to my house for an interview. He didn’t take notes like other reporters do but appeared extremely relaxed as he lounged on my sofa. I wondered what kind of an article would result, but the article was very fair. Suissa wrote that any major arts festival should be about more than one person. I guess he didn’t need a notepad for that.

Then LA Opera didn’t have the money to finance the production, went over-budget, and went to the LA County Board of Supervisors for a loan.

The company paid back the loan and has been adhering to a tight budget ever since.

LA Opera did alter the festival, however, by revealing Wagner’s warts in all the lectures. That worked. But in my estimation, Los Angeles could have utilized the kind of festival I was envisioning. I would still like to see such an arts festival in Los Angeles in the summer months, which would bring tourism to the city.

Why did I write all this here, when the focus is the Domingo resignation, you might ask?

I wrote it because LA Opera is now in hot water. It was on a tight budget before Domingo announced his exit, but now the funding will spiral way down into the orchestra pit.

LA Opera has moved up the ranks as a company in the United States. But for Mark Swed at the LA Times to say that the company will be just fine with Koelsch at the helm borders on ludicrous.

The company was so small years ago when I was a teacher at a Highland Park elementary school, that one of my co-teachers told me that her husband was traveling to San Francisco Opera to hear opera. That woman is now one of the ladies who volunteers in the booth at the Opera League table in the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion.

Again, LA Opera is unlike any other company in the United States. It had Plácido Domingo as its general director. Koelsch may run the company on a daily basis, but it was Domingo who brought in the funding. It was Domingo who brought in the stars. And it was Domingo who brought in the named artists to act as advisors, consultants, and even coaches.

Domingo recruited James Conlon to be the company’s music director and conductor. Conlon has worked tirelessly in that capacity. Not only has he conducted the orchestra with more enthusiasm than a firecracker spreading its light over the ceiling of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, but he has been committed to explaining to audiences the critical factors inherent in each production by means of talks before the performances.

How long will James Conlon stay on? He is getting up in age and conducting all over the world. If he leaves, and he will, that will be another big blow to LA Opera. So what will be left?

There should have never been an investigation by LA Opera. After the Associated Press story broke, LA Opera should have immediately said Domingo is the general director of LA Opera. He will sing in “Roberto Devereux” in February, and that should have been that.

He was not accused of a federal crime. And one woman wrote online that Latins are more touchy than other cultures anyhow. Plus the groundless accusations supposedly happened years ago.

The #MeToo movement has been carried too far.

If LA Opera wanted to save itself, the board could have quickly started defending Domingo, no questions asked. But, alas, that never happened.

More singers should have defended him like Renée Fleming who will be performing later this month in “The Light in the Piazza.” What about Susan Graham, who is a consultant with the young artist program? Why didn’t she defend Domingo? What about James Conlon? I know he must be sick about the turn of events and does defend his recruiter. But why didn’t he speak out?

Frankly, by staying at LA Opera, Conlon is not sending the right message of loyalty to the man that originally recruited him. He must leave in my mind whenever his contract ends, or sooner. And then LA Opera will be the LA Opera it once was, without much support.

I can see it now. Domingo will leave. Someone will become the company’s general director like with other companies. And James Conlon will leave as well.

And what about Marc Stern and Carol Henry — two leaders of the board of directors? What words can they offer to appease the situation? Maybe they will leave, too.

So then Los Angeles will have the type of opera company it had before.

Nobody will care about the company and instead of it keeping its ranking and moving upward, it will quickly start declining. After all, where will the money come from to finance the productions? I doubt that Christopher Koelsch could keep the company afloat as general director or president and chief executive even if he worked 24 hours a day. The only way the company could be saved from spiraling downward would be if a great artist signed on, which is very unlikely now since that would send the wrong message.

LA Opera owes so much gratitude to Plácido Domingo. So what has the company done to show its appreciation? It has alienated him in the name of being politically correct so that he felt the need to resign.

LA Opera can never recoup what it had with Domingo as general director. He is irreplaceable.

Domingo did nothing so terrible as to warrant this outcry in the United States. He is a great, great artist. He is the world’s greatest living tenor. He didn’t deserve any of this. Los Angeles was lucky to have him at the helm of its opera company.

Good luck, LA Opera. You are going to need it.

A Love Letter to LA Opera

Will He Stay? Or Won’t He Stay? That Is the Question.

Please do the right thing, LA Opera. Your life depends on it.

Arturo Chacon-Cruz, Ana Maria Martinez, Placido Domingo
in LA Opera’s “El Gato Montes: The Wildcat”
(Photo: Cory Weaver)

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

I don’t know how the Los Angeles Opera should approach the ending to the Plácido Domingo scandal in the United States, but I hope the company leaders do it correctly and are not pressured by anyone, including the press, politicians, and even the results of their own investigation by an attorney.

So far, the company is batting zero with me because I believe that the investigation was uncalled for and is a slap in the face to the great artist, Plácido Domingo, who is in the company’s general director.

The investigation must have been a front so that LA Opera could show the world that it is doing the right thing with a politically correct approach. The company could have let others do the investigation, like the union. It is a slap in the face to Domingo who has led the company for years. It is a slap in the face to the general director they have revered.

After what has happened at the Metropolitan Opera, with Domingo’s exit from that company, and after other companies canceled his engagements, he has decided most likely to perform out of the United States, which has wronged him on many levels.

But he is still scheduled to sing “Roberto Devereux” at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion with LA Opera the end of February. I would say that whether or not he sings has a great deal to do with whether or not he remains the general director of LA Opera.

Many scenarios could be in the works. He could remain general director and sing in February. He could retire as general director and still sing in February. He could retire as general director and not sing in February. But the main aspect for LA Opera to consider is “how” he leaves when and if he leaves.

Right now, the investigation is underway. And Domingo has been removed from his duties as general director even though he was involved in the scheduling and casting for this season and for upcoming seasons as well, since opera contracts are signed sometimes years in advance. So that action by LA Opera was another front to show the world that the company is proactive.

Mark Swed of the Los Angeles Times has Domingo gone. He even has the new general director chosen — with the current president and chief executive officer of the company becoming its general director.

LA Opera needs to think hard, very hard about the company’s history and future.

I spoke to a former member of the board of directors, wanting to know why he left the board. I didn’t get much of a response, but I did hear the sentence: “Everyone knows that Christopher Koelsch has been running LA Opera for years.” Or maybe it was: “Everyone knows that Christopher Koelsch runs LA Opera.”

Yes, well, I go way back, too. And I believe that I have outlined LA Opera’s history in other commentaries.

Briefly, LA Opera was run by Edgar Baitzel. He died and there was no one to run the company on a day-to-day basis. Stephen Rountree gave up some of his tasks with the Music Center to become the interim person to run the company.

Plácido Domingo had been the artistic director and then became the general director.

But LA Opera is not like other companies. Other companies usually do not have a general director who is a major artist whose name helps the company succeed. So when a general director normally leaves a company, if the next general director has a good record of management, that general director can enhance that companies stature.

But in the case of LA Opera, there is NO ONE who can do for the company what Plácido Domingo has done for it.

I wrote a story years ago that Domingo should become artistic consultant and that another person should run the day-to-day operations of the company since Domingo is out singing and conducting for much of the year. LA Opera kept Domingo as general director and Christopher Koelsch eventually moved up the ranks to be that day-to-day person with the title of president and chief executive. Problem solved. And I hear he is doing an excellent job.

But there have been other problems along the way.

The “Ring” with “Ring Festival LA” was a drain to the company’s budget.

People like Eli Broad and others were giving millions of dollars to make the production of the “Ring” possible. As I wrote previously, once a company has produced the “Ring,” it has arrived. The festival was a means to enhance tourism in Los Angeles and was billed as the largest festival Los Angeles has ever had. I thought the festival was a separate entity to the “Ring” production, but the production became part of the festival somewhere along the way.

I discovered that the festival was basically a Richard Wagner festival, since it basically honored the composer of the “Ring,” who was a known anti-Semite and racist.

I thought that the opera people didn’t know about the politicians’ intolerance of anti-Semitism and racism in Los Angeles, and that the politicians didn’t know about Wagner and his views. I wanted to help, but I got a swift kick in the pants.

I first went to a major political consulting firm in Los Angeles for help. The firm’s head was interested but learned that another PR firm had been contracted.

I wanted to see the biggest arts festival in Los Angeles that the city had ever had. I wanted to see banners up and down La Cienega Boulevard which, at the time, had numerous art galleries. I wanted all the little theaters to also be involved with their shows and I wanted the theater companies to decorate their theaters with banners that read: “Ring Festival LA.” I wanted all the arts to come together to create this massive festival that would have brought in tourists.

But somewhere along the way, I was branded as being out-of-touch.

Retired LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich was sensitive to my concerns since LA County finances the Music Center. But he limited what I had in my mind as an arts festival and only presented a motion to include other composers with Wagner as part of the festivities.

Well, the press heard that and went to town on the supervisor who meant well and was headed in the right direction, but just didn’t quite hit enough of the right notes.

Just about the only fair press I got was when David Suissa of the Jewish Journal interviewed me. He lived up the street and came over to my house for an interview. He didn’t take notes like other reporters do but appeared extremely relaxed as he lounged on my sofa. I wondered what kind of an article would result, but the article was very fair. Suissa wrote that any major arts festival should be about more than one person. I guess he didn’t need a notepad for that.

Then LA Opera didn’t have the money to finance the production and went to the LA County Board of Supervisors for a loan.

The company paid back the loan and has been adhering to a tight budget ever since.

LA Opera did alter the festival, however, by revealing Wagner’s warts in all the lectures. That worked. But in my estimation, Los Angeles could have utilized the kind of festival I was envisioning. I would still like to see such an arts festival in Los Angeles in the summer months, which would bring tourism to the city.

Why did I write all this regarding the Domingo scandal, you ask?

I wrote it because I do not know what the LA Opera board is contemplating right now. So far, the Met has made major mistakes with how the company handled its situation.

I just do not want LA Opera to do the same. I ask LA Opera to be very careful as the options are weighed.

The company has already slapped Domingo in the face with its investigation.

It would be nice if the results would turn out positive for Domingo. But if I were him, that would still anger me since LA Opera didn’t need to doubt him. And if some of the results turn out to be negative, then both Domingo and the company end up unhappy so that no one wins.

LA Opera has moved up the ranks as a company in the United States. But for Mark Swed at the LA Times to say that the company will be just fine with Koelsch at the helm borders on ludicrous.

The company was so small years ago when I was a teacher at a Highland Park school, that one of my co-teachers always told me that her husband was going to San Francisco Opera to hear opera. That woman is now one of the ladies who volunteers in the booth at the Opera League table in the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion.

Again, LA Opera is unlike any other company in the United States. It has Plácido Domingo as its general director. Koelsch may run the company on a daily basis, but it is Domingo who can bring in the funding. It is Domingo who can bring in the stars. And it is Domingo who can bring in the named artists to act as advisors, consultants, and even coaches.

Domingo recruited James Conlon to be the company’s music director and conductor. Conlon has worked tirelessly in that capacity. Not only has he conducted the orchestra with more enthusiasm than a firecracker spreading its light over the ceiling of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, but he has been committed to explaining to audiences the critical factors inherent in each production by means of talks before the performances.

So I don’t know what the answer is or what LA Opera should do or what Domingo “will” do after what has happened throughout the United States. I doubt he will remain as a fixture with the company. But it is Plácido Domingo who has been at the forefront of LA Opera for years.

NO ONE can replace Plácido Domingo. No one. And now we are supposed to wait more months to hear the outcome of the investigation.

There should have never been an investigation. After the Associated Press story broke, LA Opera should have immediately said Domingo is the general director of LA Opera. He will sing in “Roberto Devereux” in February, and that should have been that.

He was not accused of a federal crime. Even if he likes women, so what? As he said, times were different years ago. And one woman wrote online that Latins are more touchy anyhow than other cultures. So what?

The #MeToo movement has gone too far.

The board of directors is not talking. Well some of the members ought to come out and defend Domingo.

At this point, if I were him, I would retire and move to Europe where he is treated with respect.

But if LA Opera wants to save itself, the board should quickly start defending Domingo, no questions asked.

More singers should start defending him. What about Renée Fleming who will be performing later this month? What about Susan Graham, who is a consultant with the young artist program? What about James Conlon?

I can see it now. Domingo will leave. Someone will become the company’s general director like with other companies. And later, James Conlon will leave as well. He is not so young anymore either.

So then Los Angeles will have the type of opera company it had before.

Nobody will care about the company and instead of it keeping its ranking and moving upward, it will start declining. After all, where will the money come from to finance the productions? I doubt that Christopher Koelsch could keep the company afloat as general director or president and chief executive even if he works 24 hours a day.

LA Opera owes so much gratitude to Plácido Domingo that it isn’t even funny. So what has the company done to show its appreciation? It has alienated him in the name of being politically correct.

LA Opera’s board better think very hard as it takes its next steps. If the company declines and fails, it will be because of the company’s inflexibility and adherence to trying to appease groups like the press and politicians.

It is time for LA Opera to assess what it has now, and what could happen if Plácido Domingo is no longer part of the company. In my mind, LA Opera can never recoup what it has with Domingo as general director. He is irreplaceable. I would like to see Domingo remain in his current capacity, but would understand if he chose not to. Second would be for him to remain as possibly an artistic director instead. But he should remain attached to LA Opera in some capacity, and the decision should be his.

Domingo did nothing so terrible as to warrant this outcry in the United States. He is a great, great artist. He is the world’s greatest living tenor. He didn’t deserve any of this. Los Angeles is lucky to have him at the helm of its opera company.

I beseech the board members and leaders of LA Opera to think hard before doing the wrong thing.

Maybe He Just Needs Management Training

Peter Gelb at the Peabody Awards

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

Metropolitan Opera General Manager Peter Gelb clearly did not handle the removal of Plácido Domingo from the cast of “Macbeth” very well. In fact, he handled it so poorly that now, maybe it is Gelb who should go.

Democratic state Sen. Brad Hoylman wrote on Twitter: “Plácido Domingo should be removed from the show — and if he isn’t, the director of the Met should be removed too.”

So Gelb pushed Domingo out, and now I think that it is time to figure out what to do about Gelb.

I do not believe that politicians should dictate to opera company managers how they should run their companies. Does the senator know anything about opera? Does the senator know anything about Plácido Domingo? I somehow doubt it. It is more likely that he wants to appeal to his #MeToo constituents so that they will vote for him during his next re-election campaign.

And Gelb fell into his trap.

I thought that Gelb was doing a fair job until he ousted Domingo. Gelb had said that Domingo would go onstage as planned for the opening of “Macbeth,” since Gelb said he lacked information and was waiting for the Los Angeles Opera investigation to conclude. The accusations from the accusers were mostly anonymous and Domingo should have been allowed due process under the law, although nothing he was accused of was illegal. The information was not corroborated, Gelb said.

I thought Gelb was going in the right direction. But then after the “Macbeth” dress rehearsal, he met with some of the women in the chorus and orchestra who had complained that they felt awkward with Domingo on the stage while performing. After that meeting, Gelb caved in. Apparently the women felt a power struggle between them and the higher-ups. They felt that they deserved to be considered equally with Domingo even though he has sung as a star at the Met for more than 40 years and has a history they could not even come close to achieving. But Gelb caved in.

Domingo was very kind and announced that he would be leaving the production and subsequent productions at the Met. And Gelb wrote that Domingo had “agreed” to resign.

Now that is loyalty for you. Frankly, the Metropolitan Opera owes a lot more to Domingo than to Gelb. Gelb’s history at the Met is many years less than Domingo’s. The chorus and orchestra members should have been thrilled to sing with such an admired and esteemed artist in the cast of “Macbeth.” Supposedly Domingo has been acting the way the accusers accused beginning 30 years ago or more, and now he has slowed down to a stop. So do you mean to tell me that “now” they feel awkward and that this is something new? I don’t think so.

This was not like the situation with James Levine. Levine was part of the Met’s leadership. He was the music director and he had been accused of offenses that did involve the law.

So Gelb did not use his brain when it came to handling the situation at the Met last week.

Frankly, it is his job to handle such situations admirably. Maybe Gelb should not be “out.” But he certainly needs some management training for a situation handled poorly that will affect Domingo and his family for the rest of their lives.

Yes, it started with the press. Then it continued with a senator to Gelb.

But now, finally, Domingo is getting support from some of his peers: Anna Netrebko, Olga Borodina, and Maria Guleghina. Plus a woman in the chorus announced that she did not attend the Saturday meeting and had no idea who the chorus singers were that were complaining. She had nothing but admirable remarks to say about singing with Domingo.

In addition, Gelb’s wife conducted a production a few years ago at the Los Angeles Opera, the company that Domingo heads. I wonder how that happened. I am not saying that Gelb’s wife was not qualified. I am saying that Domingo goes out of his way to help artists further their careers.

Peter Gelb owes Domingo a major apology. I don’t expect that Domingo will change his mind and will ever sing at the Met again. But Gelb should go down on his knees and apologize to Domingo, and then a big gala should be held, not with Domingo singing, but in honor of Domingo for all the years he has sung at the Met.

Shock Waves Hit the Internet

It’s Not Over ‘Til It’s Over

Next stop: Opernhaus Zurich
“Nabucco”

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

Upon hearing the devastating news that Plácido Domingo stepped down from ever performing at the Metropolitan Opera again, and will no longer be singing “Macbeth” with Anna Netrebko at the Met but will be replaced by Zeljko Lucic for his scheduled three performances — I sat on the chair in front of my computer in shock.

Since I have been writing on the subject, I have received overwhelming support for my commentaries by hundreds of Domingo fans because they feel they are in a minority, are not being covered by the press, and need a voice in print. Sadly, some of them have written me phrases like, “It’s over,” and “The mob has won.”

I was trying to find a way out for Domingo when I first heard the news and talked for the first time to a number of these Domingo supporters. I do not want to really call them fans because I think of fans as being naive young people outside of the situation. But that is not the case with those who have started and maintain a group Facebook page in support of Domingo. They are not young naive fans. They are mostly women, with some men included, who are older and intelligent. They live all over the world and support Domingo for his artistry. One woman that I talked to had even been at the Salzburg Festival when Domingo received a standing ovation before he even had uttered a note this summer. The woman told me that he had tears in his eyes. I was extremely moved.

The women are trying to think of solutions. The only way that Domingo could still be redeemed, they think, is if no one shows up for the opening of “Macbeth.” But that scenario is very unlikely. I will be writing on the evening in another commentary.

According to the New York Times and NPR, Domingo issued a statement which was very gracious. He stated that he was thankful for having been able to sing at the Met for so many years, but didn’t want to detract from those in the production.

NPR wrote that Peter Gelb, the Met’s general manager, also issued a statement which read that Domingo “agreed” to step down. The word “agreed” implies that Domingo was forced out. The Times stated that state Sen. Brad Hoylman called for Domingo to be removed from the performances, and if he wasn’t, Hoylman called for the removal of Peter Gelb. The Met had no choice.

But can the senator do that? I doubt that even if a senator calls for the removal of someone from a job, the company does not have to oblige him. I believe the call to oust Domingo by the senator was totally a political maneuver so that he would secure votes during the next election from members of the #MeToo movement.

I am far too upset by the cause of events to write. If my readers want the details of the Domingo scandal, I hope they will read my previous commentaries.

My heart goes out to the Domingos. The press and a senator have pushed Domingo out. The companies have tried to be sensitive to the #MeToo movement and in so doing, the companies have pushed the greatest living tenor out of their theaters. I find their acts reprehensible.

Domingo has been tried by the press, not a court of law. The accusers were anonymous except for two who described no acts that were illegal. And if any women agreed to Domingo’s accused advances, their actions were consensual.

The Los Angeles Times commentary by Mark Swed clearly showed that the LA Times wanted Domingo to resign as general director from Los Angeles Opera. The Times already had his successor picked out. So now the Times will most probably get its wish.

I believe that Domingo has wrongfully been tried by the press when the press didn’t really even have a story.

The Associated Press started the scandal, and the Los Angeles Times followed suit. A senator tried to influence an opera company by exerting pressure. It worked, but after I slept, I woke up with a start. It was because Domingo may not sing in America very much anymore after this scandal, and he may not be the general director of LA Opera for too much longer. But I believe the decisions must be his decisions to make, and I believe this incident is far from over.

Domingo spoke of “due process” in his statement. I believe he has been speaking to his attorneys, therefore. So although he may not be singing in “Macbeth,” I believe that lawsuits will result because Mr. Domingo did not have due process under the law and was canceled by the Met as well as other companies in the United States. So far nothing has been tried in a court of law, and nothing that Domingo is accused of doing was illegal and worthy of a lawsuit against him, but since I am not an attorney, I do not really know. However I do think that Domingo has grounds for a defamation libel lawsuit, with Domingo as the plaintiff, against possibly AP, the LA Times, the state Senator, and the companies that canceled him without proper evidence. Domingo used the words “due process” in his statement for a reason. He could file a lawsuit and the people and organizations that have plotted his professional demise could still be punished if damages are proven with intent. I pray that Domingo will continue the fight to restore his good name while singing in Europe where he is accepted and appreciated. As Americans, we do have the right to due process, and Domingo was pressured and continues to be pressured, without due process, which has forced him to resign from companies including the Met.

Going Back Before the Final Blow

On Monday, Sept. 23, it seems that the press focus should have been on the opening of the Metropolitan Opera season with Plácido Domingo protégèe Angel Blue in the leading role as Bess in “Porgy and Bess.” The focus was on the Plácido Domingo allegations instead.

Angel Blue was a student at the LA County High School for the Arts. I met her at UCLA when she was studying with the great baritone, Vladimir Chernov, while securing a graduate degree at UCLA where he is a professor. Then she moved to the young artist program at the Los Angeles Opera, and has continued under the direction of Domingo, singing all over the world in concert with him, to reach the wonderful moment for her as Bess in “Porgy and Bess” at the Met.

That was yet another generous act that Domingo has accomplished. He nurtures young singers to success.

Nothing will take away my undying respect for the man who has devoted his whole life to further the art of opera.

The Old News

Before Domingo’s resignation, the union held a seminar in Los Angeles to address what to do if singers or chorus members are harassed or have been harassed and are employees of an opera company.

And Peter Gelb held a session with chorus and orchestra members of the Met on Sept. 21, to explain his rationale for not taking actions regarding the Domingo scandal at the time. Much of what I have been surmising is similar. He did not have sufficient evidence to act on, and there was no corroborating evidence, he said. He said earlier that he was waiting for the results of LA Opera’s investigation.

Plus the makeup artist who was applying makeup on Angela Turner Wilson and Domingo in the same dressing room when Wilson said he groped her — the makeup artist has denied what Wilson said happened. He originally said that he could not remember the incident, but on Sept. 23, his denial was printed online.

I repeat that all of this stemmed from one story which began in the Associated Press and continued with another story which acted as a springboard to still other news organizations that then included the AP story in their coverage .

The #MeToo movement might have started the flood of accusations that now are plaguing the opera world about Plácido Domingo. But it is not the accusations that are the worst part. The worst part is that members of the press and media have pushed Domingo out, as Domingo said in his statement, without due process. The press ran stories without attributions. Domingo has been pushed out by the press. This is not the end of the story, but possibly just the beginning. I see a lawsuit in Domingo’s future. He will not be a victim, but the Plaintiff.

However the state senator was the last straw. What right does a senator have to dictate to a company who they should hire or fire. When politicians get involved to prove their worth to their constituents, to assure their next election, I find that very sad. But what can I do about it?

Flooding calls to the editors of newspapers might help. Writing other officeholders might help as well.

But the press is responsible for ruining this family’s lives, with the help of a state senator who added pressure without the power to do much of anything except to go to the press for reinforcement.

What’s In a Name

I am the daughter of a father who was an opera singer in Vienna and Prague in the late 1930s. He was forced to give up singing after fleeing from Prague at the time of the Holocaust, and then he lost his voice in Cuba where he and my mother were stranded in an internment camp. Once out of Triscornia, they lived in Havana until they could attain visas to come to the United States. The trauma weighed heavily on my father, and he was forced to learn a new profession to support my mother and me.

I was raised like a normal American child because that is what my immigrant parents wanted. They spoke German at home, but they didn’t want me to learn the language because they didn’t want me to develop an accent. My father gave me voice lessons, and my mother carted me off for acting, dancing, swimming and tennis lessons after school. I was a spoiled American non-brat.

My parents did not talk much about their past to me, but after my mother died, I felt the need to write a book about their love story. That is when I went delving. My father taped the story of his life for me. I would sit and listen with him to his favorite operas and Lieder for hours.

But this story is not about him. That is the point. No one asked him about his life at the Neues Wiener Konservatorium when he was a student there. No one asked him about his life at the Volksoper in Vienna when he sang there. No one asked him about his life at the German Theater in Prague or at the Stadttheater in Aussig when he sang there under the baton of Kurt Herbert Adler, or when he sang Lieder for the Gauleiter who didn’t know that he was Jewish when the Nazis were infiltrating the border.

All everyone was concerned about was how my father sounded. And when he could no longer produce that sound in Havana, he felt that his life had ended. Once in the United States, he went to the best doctors in New York, Knoxville, and at Mayo Clinic. My father loved my mother and was faithful to her, but nobody asked or cared. It was all about restoring the sound of his voice.

When I go to hear opera, I always focus on the voices. I went and still go to opera based on the cast I will hear. That is what is so wonderful about opera. You can hear an opera hundreds of times, and each time the opera is different because the singers are different as well as the production.

Nowadays, the productions are important. But to me, opera will always be about the voice.

Where I am leading with this story is that people go to hear certain opera singers. They go to hear Plácido Domingo. I don’t want to go to a performance only to learn that the cover will be singing the role. I buy tickets based on who the opera singer is that is singing that role. So if I had bought a ticket to hear “Macbeth” with Domingo and Anna Netrebko, I would be very upset if he wasn’t singing. I don’t care about his private life in that context. I just want to hear Plácido Domingo sing. No one else will do.

I feel the same way about Luciano Pavarotti and Jussi Björling. If I could hear Björling now, I would run like lightening to the theater and probably cry when he walked on the stage. He wasn’t perfect. He had an alcohol problem outlined in the biography written by his wife. But I don’t care. Opera has always been about the voice to me. Opera singers are human beings, too.

When Los Angeles Opera had Ferruccio Furlanetto on the bill of “Don Carlo,” I went two times to hear him sing. I could have gone a third time. Plus I love the opera.

I went early on as a child to hear Renata Tebaldi at the Shrine Auditorium sing “Madama Butterfly.” My father took me to hear her when I was about 8. I went to hear Renata Tebaldi and no one else.

Domingo sang Pinkerton on a video I own. He did such a convincing job with the acting that I didn’t want to go to that opera for years. I just hated his character.

Again, I may be straying from the subject. But what I am trying to say is that people are buying tickets to hear Plácido Domingo and no one else. So if a company cancels him due to anonymous unproven accusations, I have no use for that kind of company, not even the Met.

The Three Tenors came about by a wonderful promoter who knew how to get them over the threshold into the living rooms of the normal person.

There are many tenors, bass-baritones, baritones and basses with gorgeous voices, but so far, that type of phenomenon has never occurred since. So those who love opera know who the current voices are and who they want to hear, but the rest of the world continues to be intimidated by the art form that they know so little about.

Domingo is probably the only person left who can draw in a cross-over crowd en masse. He also can still bring in the opera-goer who has loved him for years. He is going down in history as a legend in opera whether the #MeToo people like it or not.

The #MeToo movement seems to be in the way. Now suddenly the press runs with every story due to its impact, even if the story is totally opposite of what the reporters know as ethical journalism. They develop stories with anonymous accusations that occurred years ago when the times were different. Yes: Fake News.

Various companies canceled Domingo’s engagements, and now he is not singing at the Met. Even though the chorus members have not been affected by his accused advances, they contributed to the witch’s brew when carrying on that they felt awkward around him, and the press called that a story.

I am so appalled that I can barely think about anything else. Here is a man who is loved within the opera business. He is cultured and refined, and he presents himself as being noble and kind.

If he is different in other circumstances when he is not performing, I don’t care. I cannot attest to whether or not he has gotten a bit carried away with women in the past or not. Some believe him to be innocent. Others do not. I personally don’t care one way or the other because his advances were minimal in nature, although it was nice to learn that the makeup artist denied Wilson’s story, since he was there as a witness.

I go to opera to hear Domingo because he is a brilliant tenor, the only one left of his generation who is bigger than life. I grew up hearing his sound and hearing his name. The first time I heard him live, which was late in the game, was at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion. I was excited to simply be in the same room with him. Later when I began writing reviews, I went to opera performances so that I could write the reviews. But I still focus on the voice and the singer who is singing — young, new or old. But my general trend is still to go to an opera based on the singers in the cast.

Talk about replacing the general director of Los Angeles Opera? I am afraid after this, the LA Times will get its wish, but the revenues will fall drastically in Los Angeles. People donate big money to opera companies based on name ID.

Europe seems to be more open and flexible than the United States. The public in various cities in Europe has been raised knowing that culture is important. The people value theater, dance, classical music and opera. When I go to Vienna and ask the concierge of my hotel where to go, he tells me to go to the Wiener Staatsoper. In Los Angeles, the concierge tells me to go to Disneyland.

No one really cares about whether or not Domingo smiled at a woman, or even asked her if she had to go home that night. He is Plácido Domingo, and after he leaves the scene, there will be no one else to fill his shoes.

Yes, opera singers do reach high depths sometimes in the modern era today. Soprano Anna Netrebko has managed to climb to the top of the ladder.

So now people had the opportunity to hear both stars on the same bill at the Met, but the chorus members felt awkward.

I am sorry. There is something wrong with this picture. I was wrong in a former piece I wrote that everyone is dispensable in life. Plácido Domingo is not. He is irreplaceable. There will never be another Caruso, Gigli or Björling. There will never be another Pavarotti, and there will never be another Plácido Domingo.

So I advise the press and companies who have canceled his performances, including the Met, to stop harassing him. I advise those who know nothing about opera who have latched on to the #MeToo movement, to stop harassing him.

I fear that the only thing left for Domingo and Marta to do is to retire to Europe where he can sing with acceptance. His next scheduled performance is at the Opernhaus Zürich in “Nabucco.” Hopefully, he will sing in the United States to a smaller degree, so that we can still be graced with his presence.

So, go hear him while you still can. Go hear him and feel honored that you are in the same room with him. And give him a standing ovation for his loyalty to you in the audience.

Sing Domingo Sing! Go to the Met and Sing!

Metropolitan Opera House at Lincoln Center

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

Now that the press is running with the NPR story, another article has come out on Opera Wire about the poor women in the chorus who feel awkward with Plácido Domingo onstage at the Metropolitan Opera before his opening of “Macbeth” with Anna Netrebko on Wednesday (Sept. 25). The women are expressing how they feel during rehearsals, and they don’t want to share the stage with Domingo for the performance. They say they have never been approached by him, and it all started 40 years ago but has tapered off from slow to almost or maybe stop. Yet it is now that they are making waves because they can, and the press has hooked on to them since they are a story.

How obnoxious.

Just because men can no longer get away with sexual harassment while women stayed silent years ago, women think they can get back at the men now and get their revenge. There should be a statute of limitations on this type of thing because it is reverse harassment.

And it isn’t news. For the women complaining now, nothing happened to them. They said Domingo’s womanizing was an open secret. Well, it has all stopped now and almost all of the accusers and complainers are anonymous.

The press ought to be ashamed of itself for running with the story. Members of the press and media must really be hard up for a story if they don’t use real attributions.

Domingo is not Harvey Weinstein or Epstein or Bill Cosby or even James Levine. He is a man who just wants to sing for as long as he can and then continue to contribute to the opera world as a conductor and administrator. He has children and grandchildren. His wife is directing opera as well. It appears that the press doesn’t care who gets hurt as long as those reporting get their story. However, the LA Times commentary by Mark Swed is different. The commentary shows direct intent to oust Domingo. The LA Times is starting to show a distinct trend of thought with each article, and I hope that Domingo’s attorneys are noting the trend because it leads toward intent to damage a career.

And we in the public are just reading the stories with anonymous accusations and a couple that are on the record which are very insignificant advances if they happened as described at all.

The women had the opportunity to reject Domingo’s supposed advances. If they didn’t, that is their fault, not Domingo’s. Even if they were afraid of retribution, it was their decision to either walk away or not walk away. The real secret is who the women are and what they are saying to the press that happened. The press is running stories full of secrets.

I therefore think that the press is flying with a bunch of nothing. Almost everything being written on this topic is unethical news. The attributions are anonymous. The press just needs a story. And the press is damaging the lives of families in the process, in this case, Domingo’s family, which includes his children and grandchildren.

This may be one of the biggest challenges of Plácido Domingo’s career. He is known for being a hard worker who believes that if you don’t work, you rust. He has been singing, conducting, being an administrator, and conducting his Operalia competition, literally.

But now he is set to open “Macbeth” at the Met. He has always been liked at the Met, but now the female chorus members and some in the orchestra have changed all of that. It is incomprehensible to me that women in the pit could be saying they feel awkward with Domingo on the stage. They are down, and he is a level up. Unbelievable.

I am writing this commentary to tell Domingo to sing like he has never sung before.

It might be easier just to have the cover do the covering, but I believe that Domingo is a strong man with a strong constitution and will sing on Sept. 25 and hopefully for the rest of his run.

In my estimation, now is the time for Domingo to sing, to show that he will not be intimidated by the chorus members at the Met who never had problems singing with him before: last season or the seasons before. Maybe the audience should give Domingo a standing ovation when he comes out and boo the chorus. Strike that last part. I am just perturbed. When on stage, the chorus members will perform as directed.

A cover should be in the wings in case there is a demonstration. But Domingo should not be canceled under any circumstances. He is a true musician who has done nothing to warrant this revenge from women who have gone on with their lives and probably never even thought about any of this until the #MeToo movement started.

So Mr. Domingo! Stay in your dressing room, and then go out on the stage and let the audience know that you are the singer we know you to be.

Plácido Domingo: Courageous

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

I woke up again to another story by NPR on Plácido Domingo at the Metropolitan Opera in New York.

Frankly, everyone is writing how much courage it has taken for the accusers to come forth. In the NPR story, the accusations are simply from staff members who “feel awkward” being around Domingo as he rehearses for his upcoming engagement of “Macbeth” with star Anna Netrebko, who has called him “fantastic.” Is this truly a story? Has the world gone mad?

Now he is being hampered because these people feel awkward being around him. Frankly, Domingo is the one with the courage to get up every morning and go to rehearsal. Domingo is the courageous one. These staffers are again anonymous. The story says that his advances started 40 years ago and have slowed down, probably come to a halt. Yes, the only courageous one is Domingo. The man is almost 80 years old. His wife is 84. Far too late to come down on him now, and all because they feel awkward.

And they say that the negative work environment is in part due to memories of the James Levine scandal. Well, that was quite different. Levine’s offenses were by underage boys and there were legal proceedings that went with the accusations, and Domingo and Levine are totally different people as well. Plus, Levine, who was the Met’s music director for many years, was at the Met every day when he was healthy. Domingo sings there when engaged. So why should anonymous staffers at the Met feel threatened by Domingo being in the house? Totally different situations with totally different accusers and involving totally different men.

It is the press that has gone mad as well. These complainers are going to the press, not to attorneys, because there is nothing there. Why have they waited all these years to go to the management? And even now, they could have gone to the management before rehearsals started and solved the problems internally. Instead, it seems the press is seeking out the complainers, and the complainers are going to the press.

They are being called courageous, when the only courageous person among them is Plácido Domingo.

They say there has been an awkward power dynamic going on between employees and the powerful ones like Domingo, Levine and Peter Gelb, the general manager. Well, I have news for them. There is a power dynamic between managers and employees in every work place in this country and in the land.

Plus it is now convenient and in vogue to be anonymous based on fearing retribution. These staffers may have feared that Domingo is liked at the Met and that if they went to upper management, nothing would be done and they could lose their jobs for trying, since Domingo is more important to the board at the Met than they are, so they went to the press instead. After all, Domingo sells tickets and he is loved by his supporters, so maybe the complainers thought they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if they complained.

That said: I think that fearing that the art form of opera would be in jeopardy if they went on the record is pushing it. Excuses. Excuses.

I have no idea how to resolve this. It appears that the opera companies read the newspapers and then cancel Domingo’s engagements in the United States. Frankly, I look down on those companies for acting so quickly with insignificant information. I think that in this case, it is the staffers at the Met who are causing the problem if they actually went to NPR to complain. And if NPR came to them and they played along by answering questions, then it is their fault, too, for not handling the problems internally.

The only solution to this problem is probably for everyone to stay quiet. I look like I am changing my mind here. It is one thing to respond to stories that are outwardly damaging one’s career, like the Mark Swed commentary in the LA Times. It is another thing when anonymous people go to a newspaper to try a case in the press because they feel awkward and cannot go anywhere else since there is nothing there and they fear that nothing would come of their complaints if they went to the powers that be at their company.

The press doesn’t look too good either because the press is turning the complaints into stories that could be resolved internally and not in a newspaper, or on a radio or television show. The news is being fabricated.

The complainers feel awkward? Well, how do they think Domingo must feel about now: awkward.

I think that members of the press should stop the offensive reporting, and I think that all of these accusers and complainers should stop talking to the press.

The latest complaints could have been handled internally.

All of this is making the complainers, accusers and news organizations lack credibility. This round of complainers should realize that it is “they” who are making people feel awkward at the Met. Their gripes may or may not have been known. Yet after this story, they are.

Domingo is the only one truly suffering from the whole frenzy. The anonymous accusers and complaining staffers are the ones creating the difficult work environment, not Domingo. If anything, the only courageous one in the bunch is Domingo himself.

The Most Obnoxious Slanted News to Date

The LA Times is Attempting to Oust Domingo with Plan B

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

I was going to sit back for awhile and see what develops regarding the story on the Plácido Domingo sexual harassment accusations. But I cannot keep my mouth shut after reading one of the most obnoxious pieces I have ever read, a piece so weak in news and full of hypocrisy that I can barely breathe.

In a commentary by classical music critic Mark Swed on Plan B for both the Los Angeles Philharmonic and LA Opera in the LA Times on Sept. 18, I can only focus on the Los Angeles Opera half because that is where my expertise lies, but I could speculate that the LA Philharmonic half is just as outrageous. All I can say is that this latest commentary by the LA Times classical music critic may be worthy of a defamation libel lawsuit. But then, I am not an attorney. However now I would advise Domingo’s attorneys to step in and take action. And if not now but later, it is time for the board of directors to speak out and not be silent. Silence might have worked before, but it would be a sign of weakness now. That is just my opinion.

At the beginning of this media blitz, I wasn’t quite sure about the LA Times role in denigrating Domingo’s career. I was sure that the Associated Press had begun a developing story on harassment allegations by women who had claimed Domingo sexually harassed them years ago, and other press organizations were running with the story.

As I read articles over the last few days, I could see that the LA Times was pushing for action. A news reporter and the classical music critic have been writing reviews and stories that spell out their prognosis for LA Opera if it follows their recipe. But the Sept. 18 commentary is outwardly pointing and virtually spells out the direction LA Opera should take in the eyes of the LA Times, and the commentary has Domingo OUT no matter what the results of the investigations underway are, no matter what the board decides, and no matter what Domingo wants himself. The LA Times has become the all-knowing God here, and the paper now appears to be owned and led by Hitler. No, we don’t live in a dictatorship yet. We need another voice in Los Angeles. The LA Times will no longer do.

The LA Times has determined the outcome of the news. The LA Times editors think that if the Times actually describes Plan B, that is what will occur. If LA Opera doesn’t know what to do, the board should just read the LA Times. All the answers are there. It is like the LA Times is saying what will happen, and so it will be.

Voodoo 101 and a crystal ball: That better not be the case.

Yes, we have freedom of speech and press in this country. But when a newspaper abuses that freedom, it is time to take action.

What the Times Said

I have to begin this section by stating that the piece I read first in the LA Times on Sept. 18 was edited by afternoon. No Plan B anymore. Now the headline reads: “What does a post-Plácido Domingo future look like for LA Opera and the LA Phil?”

How can the LA Times speculate about a post-Domingo future? I think that would be a little premature. However after reading this story, if I were Domingo, I would flee from the United States and live in Europe in peace as fast as I could. I would miss him, though.

Just a few weeks ago, Domingo had completed his Operalia competition and was treated with utter respect. Then, out-of-the-blue, the Associated Press started its stories on the sexual harassment accusations. My other pieces describe the timeline in depth. Mostly anonymous women were the accusers, with two saying on the record what he did years ago: Very little.

The newspapers reported the news, and now the LA Times clearly has a vendetta out to end Domingo’s career.

It no longer matters what the results of the investigations are. It no longer matters that Domingo has worked tirelessly on behalf of LA Opera and had planned to remain as general director of the company after he retires from singing. The LA Times has put him in a position where he probably would be embarrassed to remain general director of LA Opera, and the Times apparently would be glad.

The LA Times says what it thinks in the commentary through the mouth of Mark Swed. How much of the commentary is Swed’s opinion vs. how much is the LA Times opinion is an unknown. But the editors rule, not the reporters and critics. I have first-hand experience and know this to be true since I was a reporter and have worked for a number of news organizations. Of course, I don’t know the inner workings of the LA Times, especially since the paper was sold and many of old-time reporters no longer have jobs there.

We have freedom of press in this country, so the press and media can virtually say or write anything and get away with it, unless intent can be proven to go along with damages.

That said: the commentary says that Domingo “seems to have little hope of remaining at the company” and that LA Opera has found “a controversial counsel who all but assures Domingo’s exit.”

Some of my quotes may be out of order, but they come directly from the commentaries published on Sept. 18.

It is not the place of the LA Times to dictate what will happen. It is not the newspaper’s job to devise the outcome. That is neither opinion nor commentary.

Even Mark Swed’s review of “La Bohème” is two-faced and waffles. He wrote how good the singers were in his review, then wrote that the singers were better in Germany. Now he writes that Domingo “championed young singers incapable of conveying the modern theater that the production promised.”

Domingo has been trying to help young singers. They may lack the experience of older singers, but the company in Germany had much more rehearsal time due to government subsidies, and the director was there to direct, unlike in Los Angeles, where his associate did the directing while he, the director, remained in Germany. Swed seems to think that seasoned singers could do a better job than those who have recently graduated from the young artist program or placed in Operalia. Yet he praised the singers in his “La Bohème” review, writing that one was “impressive” with a “glorious” voice, and that there wasn’t a bad voice among them. Then suddenly he got critical.

Swed wrote that Christopher Koelsch, president and chief executive of LA Opera, is the man of “imaginative ideas” whereas Domingo represents the “conventional.”

Pardon me, the beauty of opera is the conventional with a little imagination mixed in — with new opera on the bill for variety. Domingo has always championed new opera as well as conventional, singing in or promoting new operas including “Il Postino,” “The Fly,” “Grendel,” “Dulce Rosa” and others. He has been at the helm of the company when producing gorgeous broad-minded productions like “Tannhäuser,” conducted by James Conlon.

Swed likes modern theater, not traditional opera in the old sense of the word. So he is pushing for more Regietheater in Los Angeles. He clearly wants a new general director to produce more avant-garde productions. But the truth remains that LA Opera had gone over-budget when it produced the “Ring” and went to the LA County Board of Supervisors for a loan. Since then, the company has been very budget-conscious and has learned to produce what the public wants to see, which includes some of the old standard operas with conventional productions. Repetition of productions is also cost-saving. Yet, variety is the spice of life, so Domingo has sparingly introduced new opera to the company’s palette. Young singers cost less, too, and they keep opera youthful.

I wonder what Koelsch would say now. Does he stay loyal to LA Opera and Domingo or push for himself since the LA Times seems to be promoting him? It is a difficult position to be in for sure. He should stick by the company in my mind. Period. Let the Times surmise the hypothetical with its unethical news.

Swed also wrote that Koelsch and the other LA Phil hopeful are “trailblazers” who have already “proved themselves to be indispensable in making their companies what they are today.”

He speculated that they will become the new heads and are “the obvious candidates.”

He wrote that they are capable of taking the company to the next level and that they are “visionary stars” for the next generation.

Swed wrote all of this to show that Koelsch is wonderful and Domingo is archaic. If Koelsch is doing such a wonderful job, then it must directly be related to Domingo who was probably involved in Koelsch’s hiring and/or promotions since Edgar Baitzel died. Koelsch may have been a good hire, but no one is indispensable in this life. The Times has its nerve to be the judge of anything or to tell any organization who it should hire. If I were the head of the board of LA Opera and needed to find a general director, I would conduct a search to find the most credible person, and Koelsch would no doubt be part of that search — part of the competition. But the LA Times cannot dictate what it wants and exert influence due to irresponsible journalism. The LA Times is totally unethical.

The Times has also written — quite obviously, just to write something — that the Metropolitan Opera is not taking action pending the results of the LA Opera investigation. Domingo is set to sing “Macbeth” with Anna Netrebko on Sept. 25, and the results will most probably not be available by then. I assume that Domingo will sing since Netrebko has come to his defense. Yet, the Times is still trying to put a fly in the ointment, which isn’t even worthy of a mention. Domingo is rehearsing in New York. We will see if he sings. I hope so.

The union for opera artists is holding a separate investigation. Swed has written that the investigation is being carried out because the union does not have faith in LA Opera’s investigation.

There is no indication of that rationale. I just went on the union’s website, and I could not find anything about that assumption. It appears that the union simply wants to investigate sexual harassment because its board wants to learn how such behaviors could have existed for years in general without its knowledge. As a union, those on the board want to keep all female opera singers safe.

And finally: “LA Opera’s next option has to be to rebrand for a newer generation,” the commentary says.

The commentary has been edited and may be edited again for all I know, to ensure there are no grounds for a lawsuit, I presume.

“With leadership in flux, it’s time to look at group No. 2s stars of a new generation.” That was a sub-headline on the commentary I read first. Frankly, I fail to see anything wrong with Group 1.

Domingo is scheduled to sing in “Roberto Devereux” at LA Opera in February and March. That is a long way off. Much can happen until then.

I personally think that the LA Times has no credibility as a news organization. I cry for the Domingos and for anyone who has had to undergo the wrath exhibited in the this commentary.

Christopher Koelsch

There’s Nothing New in the News.
Why Now? And On What Grounds?

Domingo and the Law

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

The stunning part about the Plácido Domingo scandal is that it all started with one story written by a reporter at the Associated Press. Almost all of the accusers have been anonymous, and even the accusers that spoke on the record had very little to say except that Domingo flirted with them.

The other media organizations have latched on to the story. The latest accuser was having makeup applied with Domingo when she says he slipped his hand under her robe and touched her breast, and that was years ago. That was one notch above flirting. I would have just grabbed his hand and flirted back at him with, “No, no, no.” Or maybe she should have slapped him. End of story.

As a result, two companies and an orchestra have canceled Domingo’s engagements. Based on what? I ask.

AP surely was after a story, but there is nothing new here.

Books have been written in the past about Domingo’s roving eye as I wrote in a previous commentary: “Molto Agitato” for one, written by Johanna Fiedler; and another written by Monica Lewinsky’s mother Marcia Lewis, on the private lives of The Three Tenors. The first is more accurate and valid than the second, but still, there is really nothing new in the news. So why go after Domingo now?

The sad part for me is that Domingo has methodically been planning for his retirement from singing for years. He started conducting, then as the general director of Washington National Opera and now Los Angeles Opera, became an administrator. The board of directors of LA Opera has been dependent on his leadership. Now the board must assert its independence, which is not fair to Domingo. And now Domingo must re-evaluate his future and what he wants to accomplish. This whole turn of events is very sad to me. And it all seems to have come from out-of-the-blue.

I would assume that lawyers must be involved for a company to cancel a contract. Not one reporter has gone to Domingo’s attorney, to my knowledge, for comments. That is because there are no grounds for anything that is happening. The press is running on air.

Number One: The press is clearly after a good story, and AP apparently thinks it has one. But the problem is that so far, there are no grounds for this big story that could ruin the career of one of the greatest tenors of this generation. That could end up being a story in itself, as well as a defamation lawsuit. But I don’t know much about the law. It might be difficult to prove intent.

LA Opera may have gone to an attorney to lead an investigation, but none of the reporters have gone to Domingo’s attorney, probably because the attorney probably would not talk to the press, probably because there is nothing there. But I am only guessing. What do I know?

Second: I have no idea why any company would cancel Domingo’s engagements based on stories in the newspapers that have no legal grounds. To my knowledge, he might have flirted. Is that abuse?

If Domingo had been involved in a lawsuit, then maybe a company would have grounds. But so far there is nothing in the legal arena to my knowledge.

Plus the second element has to do with contract law. What did the contracts that were broken look like? Was there a clause in them that enabled them to be broken — a loophole? The great reporters in the press did not interview the companies with respect to the law. Was Domingo just being nice by not taking legal action against the companies regarding contract law? So much is still unknown. And the press doesn’t even show that its members have much journalism expertise if they have left out these important legal aspects to their story.

Or maybe the reporters aren’t so dumb after all. They simply know that there is nothing there. Are they trying to “denigrate” Domingo, as his spokesperson Nancy Seltzer has said, based on hot air? Maybe.

Also, Domingo has a contract to head LA Opera through the 2021-2022 season. That is another contract. Again are their clauses or loopholes in the contract that either Domingo or LA Opera can utilize? Could LA Opera force Domingo to resign as general director? Could LA Opera fire him? Or could he retire if he desires?

So to me, the latest aspects include the books that show that there is no new real news in the news. The generalities are the same.

And nothing legal has occurred which would render Domingo guilty of anything more than flirting, so his attorneys have not been questioned by the media. And he has been extremely nice by not pursuing anything legal himself regarding contract law.

There may or may not be anything there since so much is unknown. Only the future will tell.

So the press has no or few grounds for their attack on the tenor who is currently the greatest tenor alive. If anything, he may have legal grounds to sue due to the breaking of his contracts.

The press has not reported that it has gone to his attorney for comment and to learn the facts. The press is basing its stories on hot air.

I am sure that Domingo has gone to his attorney and is laying low, waiting for further developments.

All I know is there is no basis for what the press is trying to do to Domingo at this present time.

Bad and unethical reporting has led to a story that all the media organizations have latched on to.

In the end, if this vein of reporting keeps moving forward, Domingo will be exonerated and the media organizations and companies who have canceled his engagements will have egg on their faces and will have to either apologize or could face legal actions against them as a result.

Only time will tell. But as the spokesperson for Domingo said, this whole press spectacle is the result of “unethical” journalism meant to “denigrate” Domingo.

Yes, we do live in a free press society, but the press better be careful, specifically AP. This irresponsible reporting could turn around to bite them.

The Media is Taking the Domingo Allegations Too Far

Plácido Domingo & Nino Machaidze
(Photo: Craig Mathew)

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

How do you separate the man from his art?

That has been a question directed at composer Richard Wagner for decades, but now it applies to Plácido Domingo as well.

Years ago, Los Angeles Opera was about to perform the “Ring” by Richard Wagner. If a company can mount such a production, it has arrived.

Yet Richard Wagner was a controversial figure because he wrote essays that were racist and anti-Semitic, and he incorporated characters into his operas and words into his librettos that followed that trend.

So when LA Opera wanted to have a “festival” to celebrate its production of his music, which I thought was a separate entity, I thought okay. But when the festival brochure described events that would celebrate the man, I decided the festival needed to be more multi-dimensional, to enhance Wagner’s celebrity as a composer and detract from his views as a man.

The festival moved forward as planned, although Wagner was examined and analyzed with all his warts included, a different approach that worked.

Enter Plácido Domingo: another genius musician who has nurtured the careers of many, yet apparently has a weakness for women that has tinged his image.

“Heartbroken” is how one anonymous person who has been touched by Domingo feels. That is the only word he wrote on a new post on his Facebook page, and it has generated numerous supportive comments from Facebook friends. Frankly, it almost brought tears to my eyes because it says so much.

Domingo is loved by those in the opera world: not all of them, naturally, but many. He is respected as well for his stamina and ability to keep singing at the age of 78, conduct, and serve as the general director of the Los Angeles Opera.

If a young person in the young artist program has the talent, Domingo works tirelessly to help that singer thrive. If a young artist has the talent but must give up singing for some reason, he acts as a counselor and helps that singer find another place in the opera world. He is a genuinely good person, but his lust for women may have finally become his downfall when he should be receiving accolades.

Nothing has been proven, and he is being tried by the press, specifically the Associated Press. But AP has enough power to act as a springboard for other stories, including a front-page article in the LA Times.

There has been no legal action placed against Domingo thus far. The Associated Press published a story in August based on the accusations of nine women who say that they were sexually harassed by him.

Now AP has published another story because there are more.

At the onset, all of the allegations were from anonymous women except for one by Patricia Wulf, who claims that Domingo had corralled her and asked her if she had to go home that night. She refused his advances, he did not touch her, and she walked away a little bit ruffled. That was at the Washington National Opera where Domingo was general director, and the incident happened years ago. He left the company as an administrator in 2011.

The AP story on Sept. 5 states that more women have made accusations. Angela Turner Wilson said on the record that Domingo reached down her robe and grabbed her breast before a performance almost 19 years ago at the same company.

San Francisco Opera and the Philadelphia Orchestra have canceled upcoming engagements with Domingo. Dallas Opera has canceled its gala in honor of Domingo who made his US début there more than 50 years ago.

Women of the #MeToo movement in America have banded together with the hopes of attaining justice due to harassment abuses, even if the harassment took place many years ago. So Domingo has had a thriving career for more than 50 years, yet that career is now in jeopardy due to what happened years earlier.

In Europe, Domingo received standing ovations at the Salzburg Festival recently, where people seem more willing to separate the man from his opera career, and focus on the latter. His appearance in Tokyo at the Olympics is still undecided.

A scheduled documentary film was shown at approximately 300 theaters in the United States on Sept. 7, distributed by Fathom Events. I could not reach anyone at Fathom Events but did reach the managers of two local theaters. Both told me that the showings went off without a hitch and without their knowledge of any presence of the press. The managers I spoke to were in theaters in downtown Los Angeles and Universal City. The focus, a gala from Verona, was produced and scheduled before the accusations surfaced. The Hollywood Reporter reported that the turnout and proceeds were poor.

Every news outlet seems to have run with the AP story. LA Opera refuses to comment except to say that it wants to keep its employees and singers safe, and Domingo issued a statement that says the accusations are “inaccurate,” that he thought his relationships were “consensual,” and that the social climate was different many years ago. LA Opera is using outside counsel to investigate the situation.

Domingo is in New York before performing at the Metropolitan Opera with soprano Anna Netrebko, who has come to his defense. LA Opera has not taken actions. The opening of the upcoming season is on Sept. 14 with “La Bohème.” Domingo has no role in the opera.

In addition, Nancy Seltzer has recently been quoted as a spokesperson for Domingo. Seltzer heads a private public relations firm for many opera singers and is not the general spokesperson for LA Opera. She has said that the ongoing campaign by AP “to denigrate Plácido Domingo” is “inaccurate” and “unethical,” and the claims are “riddled with inconsistencies.”

And the new general director of Seattle Opera, Christina Scheppelmann, is singled out on “Slipped Disc” as having told another news organization that Domingo had no role in casting when at Washington National Opera. Scheppelmann was working at WNO at the time as his deputy and knew. Her comment is important since the accusers have said that they did not speak out earlier because they feared for their careers.

The chain reaction from the media to the opera companies is phenomenal when the majority of information is supposedly unknown due to the anonymous accusers, and the accusers who are not anonymous are citing unprofessional accusations that are still not legal offences, although I am not an attorney and do not know much about the law. I am sure that Domingo must have an attorney in the wings.

So, I ask: Where were these women at the time of the accusations and for years afterwards?

They remained silent.

The union for musical artists is pursuing an investigation to determine how sexual harassment could have prevailed for so long without the union’s knowledge. Executive director Len Egert has said that the investigation will “examine the systemic failures within the industry.” Naturally AP wrote a story on Sept. 8 on that news as well.

So — Wagner was and is celebrated no matter what he said or did many years ago, possibly because he is no longer alive. His music lives on.

Yet, one company after the other in the United States is canceling Domingo’s engagements when there is still so much unknown information. He is a legendary tenor. Most of the accusers have stated that the harassment occurred years ago when times were different.

With Domingo, it appears that due to the times, his music and art are not being separated from his persona. The events show that times are indeed different and that differences also exist due to locale: the United States vs. Europe.

I maintain that it is wrong to attempt to ruin the career of an opera legend years after such events occurred, whether or not they occurred and whether or not the accusations are accurate. Nothing has been proven in a court of law, and you “can” separate the man from his art.

People mature and change. Just as the accusers suddenly feel the need to divulge their stories and cleanse now — maybe the accused also has changed. Nothing is simple in today’s world.

Boys may have been boys years ago, but can no longer boast about their advances to their peers in the framework of today’s society. Look at Donald Trump. He boasted to Billy Bush about his conquests, and he was elected president of the United States while Bush lost his job for not reacting appropriately.

Still, I would never dream of delving back into my past and seeking out those who may not have shown respect to me. I would never dream of ruining careers based on the immaturity of both parties many years prior.

It has long been known that film directors and producers have a casting couch mentality for young female actors. Men have acted out through the centuries, but that doesn’t mean that they lost their careers and livelihoods.

I am glad that men no longer can do what they did in the past, but that doesn’t mean that we should go out of our way to ruin their lives, especially when the happenings occurred in years past and when their lives are edging toward retirement.

No, you cannot go back home again, but that is exactly what the accusers are attempting to do now.

I have just now discovered as I come to the end of this commentary that there really is nothing new here. Some of Domingo’s behavior has been described in the book, “Molto Agitato.” And then there is Marcia Lewis’s book on the private lives of the Three Tenors. The specifics may be different, but the generalities are not. So why make such a media frenzy out of this now? Just because it is fashionable and the times are different? Is this just a good story so that AP and the rest of the press decided to run with it and ruin lives?

Domingo should be praised for his tireless efforts to help young singers forge careers. He should be praised for his continuing ability to sing after the age of 78, conduct and administer LA Opera.

Whenever he retires as general director of LA Opera, he should leave of his own accord and with the board’s good will. The board has always held him in high esteem, and it would be tragic if the members were to turn against him now that he is 78 and his wife, Marta, is 84.

He will go down in history as a great tenor just as Wagner was a great composer. Can’t we celebrate both of them for their genius?

I ask the companies around the world, especially those in the United States, to show some compassion.

It is time to stop the finger-pointing and leave the man and his family at peace. It is time to help Domingo celebrate his enduring career, not harass him. He deserves far better than that.

My Point of View: Leave Mr. Domingo Alone!

Placido Domingo – Credit: Kaori Suzuki.

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink
Different earlier version in Beverly Hills Courier

So far mostly news stories exist on the accusations made by nine women who say that Plácido Domingo sexually harassed them, not opinion pieces, and eight of the women remain anonymous at the time of this posting. Only one gave her name and described his advances, and apparently, he didn’t touch her because she refused.

I have distinct views on the matter. I don’t care if the investigations underway prove him innocent, guilty or somewhere in between — I believe he is getting a bad wrap. After all, this brouhaha originated via one article by the Associated Press.

I telephoned Marilyn Ziering last week. She has contributed millions of dollars to Los Angeles Opera, the company Domingo heads, and she declined to comment as the company is investigating the situation with outside counsel. Ziering is a vice chairman on the board of directors.

Frankly, I think the matter should be solved quietly without more press interference. Domingo’s contract as director of LA Opera continues through the 2021-2022 season. He should remain in his current position and then he and the board of directors should determine his path — not the press, and not the accusers.

Why did the accusers suddenly come out of the woodwork when supposedly Domingo’s advances occurred from 1988 until a number of years ago? Did reporters dig through to find out who they were, seek them out, and then interview them?

The AP story has already caused two companies to take Domingo off their schedules. He has not pleaded innocent or denied the charges, but has said the information is inaccurate and that any relationship he has undertaken has been, to his knowledge, consensual.

The board wants LA Opera employees to feel respected and safe, but also owes much to its general director, Domingo. Although I only met him a few times, I must defend him to a certain degree since I am 72 and know the difference between men’s behavior towards women years ago and now, which he alluded to in his response to the allegations. It would be sad in my mind for Domingo’s career to end on a tragic note when he has given so much to the opera world.

When I was in my 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, men often flirted with women, and their behavior was often disrespectful, even if both sexes were single and dating. But women were accustomed to men’s advances, and frankly, if men had not flirted with me, I would have wondered what was wrong with me. I have to admit that women during that era didn’t know how to act at the end of dates when single men were so aggressive. I don’t think that women talked about such circumstances to other women. They just navigated the waters silently, so the men were not hampered or reprimanded for their actions. In fact, if men did not pursue women as almost prey, they could not have boasted to other men about their conquests. And during that era, men did boast to other men to show their virility. That is why Donald Trump thought he could boast to Billy Bush during the last presidential campaign and still win. Think “Don Giovanni.”

The question is: Should women have taken such sexual harassment? No, of course not. I am so relieved to know that they no longer must. Men should never have gotten away with such behavior, but the fact remains that they did. Naturally, men who were married and exhibited this behavior added another dimension to their indiscretions.

And if men like Jeffrey Epstein actually entered into the domain of sex trafficking — that was a different matter deserving subsequent legal action.

So the levels of indiscretions vary.

But for a woman (Patricia Wulf) to come out and admit that a powerful man (Domingo) made advances toward her many years ago without barely touching her — well, maybe this woman simply wants a minute of fame.

It has been determined in a documentary on Luciano Pavarotti that he too had indiscretions and married his assistant, beginning the relationship while he was still married. Pavarotti was one of the Three Tenors along with Domingo.

So many people in every facet of life have done what Domingo is accused of doing. Domingo was and is a great opera singer who is now considered a legend. He has extended his passion for opera to nurture young singers. He has developed his Operalia competition, conducts, and is the general director of LA Opera. I have been to various press conferences where Domingo has introduced the upcoming seasons of the company. He is always very cultured and gracious as he interacts with those present. I have also seen him at the Broad Stage when singers from the LA Opera young artist program were presented in the small theater before the larger theater had its opening. Domingo goes one step beyond other singers in helping young people attain their dreams. He shows them what dedication is all about so that they can follow his lead.

Domingo is a force of nature, still singing when almost 80, conducting, and taking on casting and other administrative roles as general director of LA  Opera. And he doesn’t stop after winners are announced for his competition. He nurtures the winners, sings with them around the world, helps them with their careers, acting as their counselors.

He may not be singing much as a tenor anymore, but he is singing as a baritone to prolong his career. His legendary status is increasing. Yet one woman seeking one minute of fame is coming forth with accusations, and apparently, he never laid a hand on her. The picture in circulation with him by her side holding her son shows they were friends. He flirted. She said no. Is that a major offense, or even news?

I personally would like others to come forth without anonymity where the evidence suggests a more verbose physical contact. Who are the nine women mentioned anonymously in the Associated Press article that spearheaded this conversation? Without attributions, I remain in limbo.

So should a powerful singer such as Domingo make advances at all? No, of course not — not years ago or now. But he did, apparently, or might have. However, now he is not only a singer and administrator, but also a grandfather who has weathered colon cancer. Now when he is elderly is not the time to clear the slate and sink the ship.

It is time for the women who were victimized by real sexual advances to come forward out of anonymity. And if they succumbed to advances, then they are to blame just as much as the perpetrator, if, in fact, their actions were consensual as Domingo has stated he thought his relationships were.

Yes, we did live with a “boys will be boys” mentality 30 years ago. We have a president who was elected to office having described similar behaviors. Past presidents have done the same.

A former member of the board of directors who still speaks at events for the company wrote me that board members should not and would not speak to the press about the incidents at this time.

“It is in the investigation phase,” she wrote me on Aug. 17.

“Domingo has an incredible career. My personal and observed relationships with him have always been positive,” she wrote. “Unfortunately, many successful, powerful men (and women) have something negative in their pasts, or certainly claims against them, real or not. This is especially as judged by today’s standards versus past social norms.”

So my friend, who had no idea I would include her comments in this article since I had no idea she would address the issue, also acknowledges that the past was indeed different than the present with the “MeToo movement” in force.

Most of the accusations happened years ago. People change and mature. Wulf sang at the Washington Opera where Domingo was the general director until 2011. I question the motives of the accusers if they are living in the past and may have unfulfilled dreams. And I assume that the reporter who wrote the original AP story had to seek them out.

I am in no way saying that what may have happened is right or that it is okay to cheat on your wife. That is between a husband and wife. I would personally not stand for it, but know many wives who do. I simply do not believe that Domingo’s career should end on this tragic note. He should not be removed from the schedules of opera companies until his voice warrants retirement.  Although he has already been removed from performing at certain companies in America, European companies and many opera singers are standing by him or waiting to hear more. His position as general director might be in jeopardy due to unprofessional behavior if proven, but he has been the catalyst to LA Opera’s upward successes. Again, I believe his contract should be honored, and he should create his own timeline for the future.

I don’t even know the definition of sexual harassment anymore: a smile, a touch, or the act. I don’t think the accusers do either.

In conclusion, Domingo may be owed apologies or reprimands depending on the findings. He may want to apologize himself. But he has worked hard and most certainly has learned the boundaries in his profession at this juncture, and I believe he will adhere to them.

The whole media circus resulted from one article by AP that spurred other outlets to respond. I think that from now on, everything discussed should be behind closed doors. Even the results of the investigation by LA Opera should be kept quiet.

Domingo is known for saying “If I rest, I rust,” and has printed the quote on his website.

I don’t believe he is ready to rust.

I believe Domingo should sing, conduct and be an administrator for as long as he desires. He is the master of his ship.

Plácido Domingo is a legend, and his candle should not be blown out due to something that has nothing to do with his status as an opera singer.

Los Angeles Opera is Doing Just Fine: There is No Competition.

Audience-Friendly Opera Sells!

Plácido Domingo as Simon Boccanegra, LA Opera.
Photo: Robert Millard

LA Opera at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion

LA Philharmonic at the Walt Disney Concert Hall

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

Two issues of significance were recently pursued in the Los Angeles Times article “Drama afoot as LA Opera feels heat of rival works,” dated June 20, 2012, and written by Reed Johnson and David Ng.

One issue addresses the fact that several Los Angeles Opera board members expressed dismay upon learning that the Los Angeles Philharmonic was staging operas like Mozart’s “Don Giovanni” in a cutting-edge modern fashion, thus treading on LA Opera’s territory. LA Opera, in fact, has plans to stage the same opera as part of its 2012-13 season. These board members were basically saying that there was a conflict-of-interest, and that the LA Phil should stay away from producing staged opera.

The other issue, which probably resulted from the responses regarding the primary issue, is much more significant. Los Angeles Opera’s viability as an opera company has been tested based on the company’s ability to produce compelling state-of-the-art theatrical opera, especially in a competitive environment during an unstable economy.

A few local smaller companies were cited in the article, and in reader comments, as being competitive. What needs to be emphasized is that both LA Opera and the LA Philharmonic are part of the Music Center Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles County in downtown LA. The County of Los Angeles owns the Music Center and maintains the buildings and grounds, and it oversees the occupancy of the theaters. LA County provides funding for maintenance, operations and security. The venues include LA Opera’s Dorothy Chandler Pavilion; the LA Phil’s Walt Disney Concert Hall; Center Theatre Group’s Ahmanson Theatre and Mark Taper Forum; and the LA Master Chorale. Although not part of the Music Center complex, the Kirk Douglas Theatre is a member of the CTG family, and the LA Phil performs at the Hollywood Bowl. Therefore, the mention of outside companies — like Long Beach Opera, The Industry, Jacaranda, etc. — only detracts from the central issue, which is that some LA Opera board members believe that LA Opera has its terrain, and that the LA Philharmonic should not cross over into LA Opera’s soundstage.

Apparently, the complaining board members learned about the conflict well after the executive board of LA Opera did. LA Opera’s head leaders understand that all of the companies and venues of the Music Center must live in harmony in a collaborative fashion. For one organization to put a halt to the programming of another organization would be a form of censureship. Still, certain venues are more successful with certain genres, and meeting periodically to discuss the most advantageous programming for both organizations is a commendable idea.

However, of more significance to me is the comments in the article from people regarding LA Opera’s permanence on the operatic scene when compared to smaller companies with more daring and innovative productions.

The Times quoted Jacaranda’s artistic director, Patrick Scott, as having said: “I understand the financial challenges that LA Opera has, especially with the debt incurred by the ‘Ring’ cycle. . . . But I think that they have had a history of making safe choices . . . but I feel like if they don’t start to swing out, and do the kind of repertoire that [has] legs with the audience, they’re painting themselves into a corner.”

Anne LeBaron, a composer and faculty member at the California Institute of the Arts, is quoted as having said about LA Opera: “They’re depending on these old war horses and their aging audience. And they don’t even do productions that are that new in approach.”

Well, I have to stand up for Los Angeles Opera.

I was very vocal during Ring Festival LA because I believed that a major arts festival should not be devoted to one composer, and an anti-Semitic racist composer (Richard Wagner) at that, even though I believed wholeheartedly that a “Ring” should be produced by LA Opera in Los Angeles.

But the fact remains that LA Opera officials found it difficult to raise the funds to meet the budgetary demands of the $32 million production, and were forced to seek a $14 million loan from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which has been partially paid back in an exemplary fashion with the remainder pledged for later this year, according to the Times.

Yes, LA Opera is making safe choices now, which Patrick Scott has questioned. There is no doubt in my mind that LA Opera has grown in wisdom.

Los Angeles Opera has become a tradition in LA. The Dorothy Chandler Pavilion is the most elegant old-time theater in Los Angeles. Going to the opera is not just about seeing the production and hearing the opera singers, although maybe it should be. Going to the opera is an invigorating experience for all of those who attend. It is an opportunity for people to dress up for the occasion, knowing that they will feel regal once inside the theater. There is nothing more energizing than sitting in the orchestra section and seeing the conductor walk to the podium, raise his or her baton, and then hear the first bars of the overture. There is nothing more captivating than seeing the first glimpse of a creative-looking detailed set as the curtain opens after or during that overture.

Opera is a type of education. There is a reason that people go to see the same operas performed over and over again with different casts, costumes and sets. There is no substitute for the music of composers like Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, and others, sung by fat, thin, ugly, pretty or handsome-looking opera singers with voluptuous voices.

There is a definite place for new opera and cutting-edge productions. LA Opera has produced and will continue to produce its share of new opera. And more modern smaller venues might be more prone for success with such genres in their spaces. But the new cannot replace the old. There has to be room for variation and preservation.

If young people only buy tickets to opera if it is visually in the groove, then they haven’t cultivated the love for opera as it was meant to be perceived. Opera is beautiful, elegant and romantic.

LA Opera officials have tried to be innovative at the expense of being unable to fulfill their financial obligations. The company is doing a superb job now that is in tune with balancing the budget while still providing audiences with the opportunity to see and hear the most beautiful operas composed in all of opera.

When the company is able, it will produce more new productions, and more productions in general. Hopefully the number of known international star singers in those productions will increase, with talented younger singers performing as well. And the company will produce more new opera.

But I cannot emphasize enough that there is no competition for LA Opera. It is our premiere opera company, and nothing can tarnish it. I salute the smaller innovative companies that are sprouting up, but without a major opera company in Los Angeles, Los Angeles would only suffer as being culturally deprived of having a traditional opera company when other cities in the United States do. LA Opera helps Los Angeles resonate as a cultural mecca throughout the world.

There is a place for new operatic works staged with innovative concepts, whether produced by LA Opera, the LA Philharmonic, or any other arts organization. But people should not forget that Los Angeles Opera offers its own brand of entertainment in the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, and it is irreplaceable.

Los Angeles Opera at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion
135 North Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90012
LAOpera.com

Los Angeles Philharmonic at the Walt Disney Concert Hall
111 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90012
LAPhil.com

Wise or Not So Wise?

By Carol Jean Delmar
Opera Theater Ink

Los Angeles Opera announced on Sept. 20 that Plácido Domingo is extending his contract as the company’s general director through the 2012-13 season. The contract will automatically renew with the mutual consent of Domingo and the company.

In light of LA Opera’s financial woes — a $14 million loan approved and guaranteed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and a $5.96-million deficit due to the company’s insistence on producing a $32 million “Ring” when funding was limited — I do not believe that retaining Domingo as LA Opera’s general director was a wise decision.

Domingo is the greatest living tenor in the world and has been a motivating cultural boost to Los Angeles. He is an excellent fundraiser, has imported prominent international opera stars to the LA shores, and is a wonderful mentor to some extremely gifted young singers. He should remain as an artistic adviser, but someone else should have been designated to run the on-site day-to-day operations of the company since Domingo spends most of his time traveling and performing. The general director should be someone with business, management and accounting skills who knows how to balance the books and is familiar with opera, productions, casting and fundraising.

Had LA Opera announced that its organization would be augmented to include an executive with business experience to manage the day-to-day operations of the company, I would have accepted Domingo’s decision to remain at the helm. Edgar Baitzel was known for having done an exemplary job in such a capacity before his death. But a search to replace him has never been announced. Stephen D. Rountree, LA Opera’s chief operating officer, is president and chief executive officer of the Music Center. He should not be called upon to lead LA Opera’s on-site operations. His effectiveness in overseeing the Music Center should be fully utilized.

In addition, Domingo’s position as general director of Washington National Opera is also in jeopardy. The company was forced to reduce its 2010-11 offerings and to cancel its “Ring” due to financial problems. WNO is now considering a merger with the Kennedy Center, which leaves Domingo’s future in question.

Music Director James Conlon was cited as having said that he hopes to revive the avant-garde Achim Freyer ”Ring” within five years (LA Times, July 2, 2010). He also said that making LA Opera a “hub of Wagnerian activity” was one of the key bargaining points when he was asked by Domingo to become LA Opera’s music director (Opera News, July 2009).

Granted, Richard Wagner is considered to be one of the world’s greatest composers, and his operas should be part of every company’s repertoire, but Los Angeles is not a Wagner town. The financial failure of LA Opera’s controversial “Ring” production has proved that hypothesis.

Opera programming should fulfill the desires of ticket buyers in order to be lucrative. Domingo has allowed passion to dictate his business sense, which has led the two companies he heads to near bankruptcy.

LA Opera laid off numerous employees to save $500,000 a year, according to an LA Times article on Sept. 10 based on comments made by LA Opera chairman Marc Stern. The Times reported that Domingo earned $814,000 in 2008-09 with $414,000 paid and $400,000 deferred, and $780,000 from Washington National Opera. Plus he received compensation for his performances throughout the United States and Europe. Yet his working-class employees were laid off during a recession, thus safeguarding his income, and the LA County Board of Supervisors backed a $14 million loan when the company was “$20 million in debt, partially because of the undertaking of its ‘Ring’ festival,” according to Stephen Rountree (LA Times, Dec. 9, 2009, by Kelsey Ramos).

Yes, a new innovative general director for LA Opera would have invigorated the company if Domingo would have remained as an artistic adviser. The change could have improved the company’s image and would have communicated to the world that LA Opera is serious about its fiscal responsibilities. The only hope now is for Domingo to capitalize on his strengths, realize his limitations, and search for an on-site director.