> Don’t think they’re saying it explicitly, but I have a feeling the average age of their patronage has something to do with it. Have never felt so young as when I’ve been to either the Met or Chicago’s Lyric. (B’way skews older too obviously, depending on the show of course, but not to the level of an opera crowd.)
J'accuse.
First, I've been to PLENTY of operas at the Lyric; the average age is no less, er, desiccated than at the Met.
But to the main point, i think you're very close to the Met's challenge, but not quite there. When the Met stages something provocative and engaging like, say, Akhnaten, the house is full, and from my seats way up in the balcony the tops of the heads are not particularly grey. On the other hand, when they mount (remount, really) an ABC (Aida, Boehme, Carmen), the average age approaches triple digits. Unfortunately, those grey heads represent the donor base without which the organization instantly perishes. So the challenge to Met General Manager Peter Gelb is: do you appeal to the donor base that represents the present (which is actually the past), or to the newcomers who want to be challenged (which is actually the future, but future donations don't pay todays bills). The Met hasn't figured this out yet -- quite likely because it's just. not. possible.
(Also, opera is gobsmackingly expensive to produce, so whatever we think we know about performance finance from theater is of limited utility here.)
(Also, also, the Metropolitan Opera House is a 3800 seat BARN, which presents its own unique challenge.)
I think the conclusions to be drawn from your (accurate) observation are more complex than "opera is for old people." GOOD, ENGAGING opera is for theater-lovers of any age.
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
