The New York Post's Page Six section, a space that infrequently turns its attention to classical music, reports on a bizarre attack that Peter Gelb recently unleashed on Zachary Woolfe, the classical critic of the New York Times. At a donor event on the Upper East Side, Gelb apparently said: “There’s a great deal of resentment on the part of some critics — not all critics, some critics — about the idea that music should be approachable by a large audience and should be available to more people and some critics might [prefer to] keep it sacred, in some ways, for themselves." He went on to claim that "some critics" were promoting “the operas of Elliot [sic] Carter or pieces that I don’t believe would have popular success." This is nonsense, on several levels. First, Elliott Carter wrote only one opera, the forty-seven-minute-long What Next?, and I'm unaware of anyone campaigning for it to be performed at the Met. (Perhaps it could appear on a double bill with Morton Feldman's Neither.) The remark exhibits Gelb's basic indifference to contemporary music. Second, Woolfe is hardly an inflexible advocate of modernist complexity; Gelb seems to have confused him with the late Charles Wuorinen. Third, the Met is lavishly covered in the pages of the Times, and it's rather ungrateful for the company's leader to attack it on that score. Finally, after nearly two decades at the Met, Gelb ought to have developed thicker skin when it comes to bad press. It's a recurring syndrome: recall his 2012 attempt to shut down adverse coverage of Met productions in Opera News. Instead of conjuring imaginary media conspiracies, Gelb should focus on serious challenges, of which there is no lack.
