Why was the Met so snobbish?

On Jul 10, 2:50 pm, "Richard Loeb" <loeb....TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
> Merrill's apology to Bing:
>
> Here is the letter from 21 January 1952 issue of Opera News:
>
> Dec. 4, 1951
>
> Dear Mr. Bing:
>
> Having had ample time to reflect upon the unfortunate incident last spring,
> I express to you now my deep regret for my action and the inconvenience it
> caused you and my colleagues.
> I know what the Metropolitan has meant to me as well as to many others. I
> realize the complex nature and many problems of its operation. I realize
> that the success of the Metropolitan depends greatly on the sincere
> cooperation, loyalty and self-discipline of its artists. I also understand
> your action in striking my name from the roster of the Metropolitan for not
> participating in the Spring Tour, and appreciate that you had no other
> alternative.
> Singing at the Metropolitan has been my life. Should you be willing to
> reconsider my reinstatement, which I most sincerely desire, let me assure
> you that your trust in me will not be misplaced.
> Please feel free to use this letter as you may think fit.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Robert Merrill.
>
> The above obvioulsy comes from a person with no leverage in the discussion
> whatsoever.
>
> Here is the Bing reply:
>
> 7 Dec. 1951
>
> Dear Mr. Merrill:
>
> I am glad to have your letter of Dec. 4. To admit one's mistakes the way you
> have done is a sign of moral courage and decency.
> I shall be willing to forget the past. Please come to see me so that we may
> discuss your rejoining the Metropolitan Opera next season.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Rudolf Bing.
>
> So there you are - Bing forgave him. Richard


Richard:
Thanks so much for this. I really appreciate your taking the time to
provide the letters.
I can't help thinking about the "Honeymooners" episode where Ralph
writes an angry letter to his boss. The letter begins: "You dirty
bum!" and goes downhill from there. At the end, Ralph signs the
letter "Sincerely yours"!
Best,
Ken
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Met so snobbish? 

On Jul 10, 4:36 pm, Ken Meltzer <commsp....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

>The letter begins: "You dirty bum!" and goes downhill >from there. At the end, Ralph signs the >letter "Sincerely yours"!

Why not "Kind regards"?

The letter reminded me of something. While there was no doubt an
element of elitism involved in Bing's policies (and thanks to REG for
the citations), at least some of his decisions were based on practical
considerations, and the "best interests of the Met". His objections
to artists' participation in "non classical" ventures were based, at
least in part, on their effect on those artists' activities at the
Met. His "beef" with Merrill centered around the fact that Merrill's
involvement with "Aaron Slick of Punkin' Creek" prevented his
participation in the Met tour, not the quality of the show itself.

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Met so snobbish? 

On Jul 10, 4:52 pm, wkasimer <wkasi....DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 4:36 pm, Ken Meltzer <commsp....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >The letter begins: "You dirty bum!" and goes downhill >from there. At the end, Ralph signs the >letter "Sincerely yours"!
>
> Why not "Kind regards"?

Now that I think of it, I believer Ralph signed it "Respectfully
yours". Even better!

>
> The letter reminded me of something. While there was no doubt an
> element of elitism involved in Bing's policies (and thanks to REG for
> the citations), at least some of his decisions were based on practical
> considerations, and the "best interests of the Met". His objections
> to artists' participation in "non classical" ventures were based, at
> least in part, on their effect on those artists' activities at the
> Met. His "beef" with Merrill centered around the fact that Merrill's
> involvement with "Aaron Slick of Punkin' Creek" prevented his
> participation in the Met tour, not the quality of the show itself.
>
> Bill

Yes, that's something I didn't recall. Thanks again to Richard for
posting the two letters.
Best,
Ken
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Met so snobbish? 

Merrill's apology to Bing:



Here is the letter from 21 January 1952 issue of Opera News:

Dec. 4, 1951

Dear Mr. Bing:

Having had ample time to reflect upon the unfortunate incident last spring,
I express to you now my deep regret for my action and the inconvenience it
caused you and my colleagues.
I know what the Metropolitan has meant to me as well as to many others. I
realize the complex nature and many problems of its operation. I realize
that the success of the Metropolitan depends greatly on the sincere
cooperation, loyalty and self-discipline of its artists. I also understand
your action in striking my name from the roster of the Metropolitan for not
participating in the Spring Tour, and appreciate that you had no other
alternative.
Singing at the Metropolitan has been my life. Should you be willing to
reconsider my reinstatement, which I most sincerely desire, let me assure
you that your trust in me will not be misplaced.
Please feel free to use this letter as you may think fit.

Sincerely yours,
Robert Merrill.

The above obvioulsy comes from a person with no leverage in the discussion
whatsoever.

Here is the Bing reply:

7 Dec. 1951

Dear Mr. Merrill:

I am glad to have your letter of Dec. 4. To admit one's mistakes the way you
have done is a sign of moral courage and decency.
I shall be willing to forget the past. Please come to see me so that we may
discuss your rejoining the Metropolitan Opera next season.

Yours sincerely

Rudolf Bing.

So there you are - Bing forgave him. Richard


"Richard Loeb" <loeb123 RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zsidnWeuRb_YMg7bnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1184081220.226229.257890@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 10, 8:32 am, "REG" <Richer... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thank you for focusing on the content of the post, Ken. Yesterday was
>>> quite
>>> a day for everyone, wasn't it? I enjoy American football, but it never
>>> occured to me that so many others do too. I suppose it takes a while to
>>> get
>>> into a passing game.
>>
>> All good, clean fun, IMO, and senza rancor.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I think the issues of Merrill and Melchior (and Traubel???) all
>>> kind
>>> of point to the same elitism and snobbism of Bing. I think Bing needed
>>> Merrill, and had to make the compromise - a lot of it was whether
>>> Merrill
>>> would say "Mother, may I", before he went and did the film, I think.
>>>
>>> I actually don't know who the singers below could have been replaced by
>>> anyone else, which was Sills' point in her first autobiography, and what
>>> I
>>> thought was off about the list of singers was that they would not have
>>> been
>>> easily replaced at their level of vocal excellence, particularly given
>>> the
>>> number of performances that they were willing to commit to the MET.
>>>
>>> Best
>>
>> I don't have any problem with Bing being characterized as a "snob." I
>> think he was very much an elitist. The problem I have is that a lot
>> of NYCO performers, many of them Americans, did get their chance to
>> perform at the Met during Bing's regime.
>> I do think that with a few exceptions, Bing had a great deal of
>> trouble tolerating singers he perceived as strong-willed, particularly
>> those who bucked his authority. But this lack of tolerance
>> transcended geographic boundaries.
>> Best,
>> Ken
>>
>>
> Bing may have needed Merrill but if Merrill had not publicly apologized to
> Bing you would never have heard him at the MET - Bing could really dig his
> heels in and he had a real sore spot for MET singers "slumming" in movies
> and night clubs - fortunately Merrill did very contritely apologize - I'll
> try and hunt up the letter Richard
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Met so snobbish? 

On Jul 10, 6:23 pm, "Richard Loeb" <loeb... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:

> Happy to post the letters - I wonder if Bing used the same reason (conflicts
> with performance dates) to get rid of Traubel and Melchior. Richard

I seem to recall that Bing wasn't happy with Traubel's nightclub
appearances. I think Bing viewed Melchior as an aging and
undisciplined artist. Regardless, Melchior deserved a lot better
treatment than what he received from the Met.
Best,
Ken
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Met so snobbish? 

"Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184099786.368613.227130@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard:
> Thanks so much for this. I really appreciate your taking the time to
> provide the letters.
> I can't help thinking about the "Honeymooners" episode where Ralph
> writes an angry letter to his boss. The letter begins: "You dirty
> bum!" and goes downhill from there. At the end, Ralph signs the
> letter "Sincerely yours"!
> Best,
> Ken

"Sincerely yours?" not "Kind regards?" Surprising
St. André ~ Juif
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Met so snobbish? 

"wkasimer" <wkasimer.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1184100747.074480.212640@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 4:36 pm, Ken Meltzer <commsp....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>The letter begins: "You dirty bum!" and goes downhill >from there. At the
>>end, Ralph signs the >letter "Sincerely yours"!
>
> Why not "Kind regards"?
>
> The letter reminded me of something. While there was no doubt an
> element of elitism involved in Bing's policies (and thanks to REG for
> the citations), at least some of his decisions were based on practical
> considerations, and the "best interests of the Met". His objections
> to artists' participation in "non classical" ventures were based, at
> least in part, on their effect on those artists' activities at the
> Met. His "beef" with Merrill centered around the fact that Merrill's
> involvement with "Aaron Slick of Punkin' Creek" prevented his
> participation in the Met tour, not the quality of the show itself.
>
> Bill
>

Happy to post the letters - I wonder if Bing used the same reason (conflicts
with performance dates) to get rid of Traubel and Melchior. Richard
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Met so snobbish? 

On Jul 10, 2:50 pm, "Richard Loeb" <loeb... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote:
> Merrill's apology to Bing:
>
> Here is the letter from 21 January 1952 issue of Opera News:
>
> Dec. 4, 1951
>
> Dear Mr. Bing:
>
> Having had ample time to reflect upon the unfortunate incident last spring,
> I express to you now my deep regret for my action and the inconvenience it
> caused you and my colleagues.
> I know what the Metropolitan has meant to me as well as to many others. I
> realize the complex nature and many problems of its operation. I realize
> that the success of the Metropolitan depends greatly on the sincere
> cooperation, loyalty and self-discipline of its artists. I also understand
> your action in striking my name from the roster of the Metropolitan for not
> participating in the Spring Tour, and appreciate that you had no other
> alternative.
> Singing at the Metropolitan has been my life. Should you be willing to
> reconsider my reinstatement, which I most sincerely desire, let me assure
> you that your trust in me will not be misplaced.
> Please feel free to use this letter as you may think fit.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Robert Merrill.
>
> The above obvioulsy comes from a person with no leverage in the discussion
> whatsoever.
>
> Here is the Bing reply:
>
> 7 Dec. 1951
>
> Dear Mr. Merrill:
>
> I am glad to have your letter of Dec. 4. To admit one's mistakes the way you
> have done is a sign of moral courage and decency.
> I shall be willing to forget the past. Please come to see me so that we may
> discuss your rejoining the Metropolitan Opera next season.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Rudolf Bing.
>
> So there you are - Bing forgave him. Richard
>
> "Richard Loeb" <loeb... DeleteThis @comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:zsidnWeuRb_YMg7bnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > "Ken Meltzer" <commsp... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:1184081220.226229.257890@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jul 10, 8:32 am, "REG" <Richer... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Thank you for focusing on the content of the post, Ken. Yesterday was
> >>> quite
> >>> a day for everyone, wasn't it? I enjoy American football, but it never
> >>> occured to me that so many others do too. I suppose it takes a while to
> >>> get
> >>> into a passing game.
>
> >> All good, clean fun, IMO, and senza rancor.
>
> >>> Anyway, I think the issues of Merrill and Melchior (and Traubel???) all
> >>> kind
> >>> of point to the same elitism and snobbism of Bing. I think Bing needed
> >>> Merrill, and had to make the compromise - a lot of it was whether
> >>> Merrill
> >>> would say "Mother, may I", before he went and did the film, I think.
>
> >>> I actually don't know who the singers below could have been replaced by
> >>> anyone else, which was Sills' point in her first autobiography, and what
> >>> I
> >>> thought was off about the list of singers was that they would not have
> >>> been
> >>> easily replaced at their level of vocal excellence, particularly given
> >>> the
> >>> number of performances that they were willing to commit to the MET.
>
> >>> Best
>
> >> I don't have any problem with Bing being characterized as a "snob." I
> >> think he was very much an elitist. The problem I have is that a lot
> >> of NYCO performers, many of them Americans, did get their chance to
> >> perform at the Met during Bing's regime.
> >> I do think that with a few exceptions, Bing had a great deal of
> >> trouble tolerating singers he perceived as strong-willed, particularly
> >> those who bucked his authority. But this lack of tolerance
> >> transcended geographic boundaries.
> >> Best,
> >> Ken
>
> > Bing may have needed Merrill but if Merrill had not publicly apologized to
> > Bing you would never have heard him at the MET - Bing could really dig his
> > heels in and he had a real sore spot for MET singers "slumming" in movies
> > and night clubs - fortunately Merrill did very contritely apologize - I'll
> > try and hunt up the letter Richard

Thanks, Richard. That was very touching. It also reminded me of the
Met tours. Washington was always one of the stops. I worked next to
the Kennedy Center in the Watergate Hotel at the time, and got to meet
many of the orchestra members in the bar. The Met brought to
Washington my first Cav&Pag (with Cornell Macneill) and my first Lucia
(with Neil Shicoff). Great memories.
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Met so snobbish? 

I think most of them got a chance, that wasn't what I was saying. What I
think is that he delayed with most of them as long as possible. I don't get
the feeling that he wanted the MET to 'legitimize' those careers where they
wouldn't be beholden to the MET. And the bottom line is that he didn't want
the public to see that City Opera was 'competing' with the MET. He's
expressly clear on that in his first book.



"Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184081220.226229.257890@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 8:32 am, "REG" <Richer....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you for focusing on the content of the post, Ken. Yesterday was
>> quite
>> a day for everyone, wasn't it? I enjoy American football, but it never
>> occured to me that so many others do too. I suppose it takes a while to
>> get
>> into a passing game.
>
> All good, clean fun, IMO, and senza rancor.
>>
>> Anyway, I think the issues of Merrill and Melchior (and Traubel???) all
>> kind
>> of point to the same elitism and snobbism of Bing. I think Bing needed
>> Merrill, and had to make the compromise - a lot of it was whether Merrill
>> would say "Mother, may I", before he went and did the film, I think.
>>
>> I actually don't know who the singers below could have been replaced by
>> anyone else, which was Sills' point in her first autobiography, and what
>> I
>> thought was off about the list of singers was that they would not have
>> been
>> easily replaced at their level of vocal excellence, particularly given
>> the
>> number of performances that they were willing to commit to the MET.
>>
>> Best
>
> I don't have any problem with Bing being characterized as a "snob." I
> think he was very much an elitist. The problem I have is that a lot
> of NYCO performers, many of them Americans, did get their chance to
> perform at the Met during Bing's regime.
> I do think that with a few exceptions, Bing had a great deal of
> trouble tolerating singers he perceived as strong-willed, particularly
> those who bucked his authority. But this lack of tolerance
> transcended geographic boundaries.
> Best,
> Ken
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Why was the Met so snobbish?