The ‘Ring’ Failure: Where Does LA Opera Go From Here?

By Carol Jean Delmar

Ring Festival LA was a party for insiders — for the sponsors, participants, artists, donors and politicians – but not for the people who live in LA, and not for the tourists or out-of-town critics, because they just didn’t come. They didn’t come for a variety of reasons. The most widely mentioned excuse has been the recession, but then, that was just an excuse. They didn’t come because the Achim Freyer “Ring” was more Freyer than Wagner. The costumes were cheap; the characters didn’t relate; and the set wasn’t much of a set. As for the music, I simply cannot remember. All I know is that the LA press raved about it, but the national and international press avoided it after sampling hors d’oeuvres.

I believed that the LA politicians didn’t know that Wagner was a racist and jumped on the bandwagon when LA Opera suggested a “Ring” festival. But it turns out that they just wanted a party, and the “Ring” festival was the perfect excuse. The leaders of the opera company didn’t care about Wagner’s racism and simply couldn’t help themselves because they’re “’Ring’ nuts”. They would have done anything to perform the “Ring,” so they conned people into becoming their converts. But they didn’t have the money, and they couldn’t con the public.

On Dec. 9, 2009, the day after LA Opera approached the LA County Board of Supervisors for a $14 million loan, Opera News Online reported: “LA Opera chief operating officer Stephen D. Rountree . . . told the county’s board of supervisors that the loan ‘is needed now’ . . . and that twenty-three LA Opera trustees had pledged $30 million over the next two-and-a-half years to stablize the company’s finances after what was characterized as years of overspending.”

Rountree told the LA Times that the company was “$20 million in debt, partially because of the undertaking of its ‘Ring’ festival” (Dec. 9 article on the Internet by Kelsey Ramos).

The supervisors granted LA Opera the $14 million loan by issuing bonds which were purchased by Banc of America Leasing & Capital LLC. If LA Opera doesn’t pay the loan back in three years with interest going to the bank, county taxpayers will foot the bill.

The debt didn’t accumulate overnight. LA Opera board members made interest-free loans of $10.9 million during the 2006-07 season and $19.6 million during the 2007-08 season along with an $11 million line of credit from the Bank of the West at 5 percent interest, reported the LA Times and Opera News. During the 2007-08 season, ticket sales totaled $18.2 million when the budget was $55.6 million, but donations of $40.7 filled the gap. In the 2006-07 season when Plácido Domingo stated that the company had the financial means to move forward with the “Ring,” in spite of Eli Broad’s $6 million donation, the Times reported that the deficit was nearly $6 million (Dec. 8, 2009). The company therefore had financial problems well before the recession and did not have the means to move forward with the “Ring.”

To understand my perspective, I must outline some of my history. I started off with simply one objection: Richard Wagner was a genocidal racist, and I didn’t believe that a countywide Wagner festival would be ethical in a multicultural city like LA. I believed that the opera leaders didn’t know city politics, and that the political leaders didn’t know about Wagner. In no way did I want to put a halt to LA Opera’s performances of the “Ring.” I just didn’t want to see more than 100 programs, many of them lectures, centered around Wagner. I had no idea what kind of production the “Ring” would be, that LA Opera would need a $14 million loan to produce it or that the company would end up with a $5.96-million deficit ($4 million from the “lean box office” and the rest from “shortfalls in expected donations” — LA Times, July 2).

When I first read the “Ring” cycle order form, I thought the ticket prices were astronomical. Tickets in the front orchestra were $2,200 per cycle with $1,100 of the total being a donation. Tickets for the next section of the orchestra were $1,600 with an $800 donation, and tickets in the back portion of the orchestra were $800 with a $400 donation. Most of the tickets in the loge were $1,300 with a $600 donation.

The result was that ticket sales were $1.5 million below budget in April and May. LA Opera then eliminated the donation portion, thus resulting in $2.5 million in lost donations that were linked to ticket sales. Large donors were lumped together as “Friends of the Ring,” and LA Opera overestimated those donations by $900,000, according to a company spokesperson. Toward the end of the run, LA Opera discounted tickets to fill the house. The lack of ticket revenue and projected donations accounted for the remainder of the deficit.

LA Opera knew that the production would cost $31-32 million, but the budget was just a wish list. The repercussions of the company’s miscalculations will impact many seasons to come. A few years ago LA Opera was producing 10 productions with 75 performances. Now the numbers have been reduced to six productions with 46 performances, and that includes three recitals, an added event and a gala.

I tried to help LA Opera a year ago. I even went to the president of a well-established political public relations firm because I had worked for the firm and trusted the judgment of its staff. I believed that a general arts festival in LA would be more inviting, lucrative and moral than a Wagner festival. I envisioned banners all over the city. Far more arts organizations would have participated because Wagner would not have been the focal point of the festival even though the “Ring” performances would have remained at its core. A Wagner festival seemed utterly wrong to me, and apparently, I was right.

“LA is not a Wagner town,” a laid off LA Opera employee told me. She was right. People would much rather see the “The Barber of Seville” or “The Magic Flute” than a Eurotrash “Ring.”

At any rate, LA Opera forged ties with another public relations firm and clearly wanted a Wagner festival — not one that would entertain the LA public, and not one that would draw in tourists. That became evident when Supervisor Mike Antonovich’s motion to broaden the festival was defeated in favor of a substitute motion that endorsed the all-Wagner festival. So I continued to make people and organizations aware of Richard Wagner’s racism and where it appears in his operas. And I continued to make them aware of his family’s ties to Hitler and to the Nazis.

Although I was opposed to a Wagner festival, I was looking forward to seeing a somewhat visionary “Ring” with modern technology and color. I tried to keep an open mind, but the Freyer “Ring” was enough to drive me to drink. I wrote my reviews accordingly instead.

While attending some of the lectures, I was disturbed when erroneous information was being communicated without more accurate points of view provided for balance. The LA press seemed to have been bought off. The reporters and critics were publicists, not journalists. They were insulting the public’s intelligence.

The elected officials wanted to make money, but they didn’t realize they had an inferior product. And the opera company had no leadership. The lust for Wagner blinded everyone’s objectivity. Music Director James Conlon was cited in the LA Times as having said that he wants to revive the Freyer “Ring” in five years (July 2). In light of the fact that it will take the company years to recover financially and regain its credibility, Conlon’s statement shows just how out of touch the company really is.

If LA Opera is to survive, it needs fresh leadership. Domingo is the greatest living tenor, but he is not an on-site manager. He has done what the board expected of him because the board was aware of his artistic commitments when he was named general director. But during his tenure, he has proved that LA Opera needs more than he can offer. Yet he has been an asset to the Los Angeles landscape, is an excellent fundraiser, has enticed international singers to perform in LA, and is a wonderful mentor to some extremely gifted young artists. He should remain as artistic director or artistic consultant, but someone is needed to run the company: someone with business, management and accounting skills who knows how to balance the books; someone who is familiar with opera, productions, casting and fundraising; someone who may have been an artist, but who has graduated into management. If Domingo decides to renew his contract and remain in his current capacity — although I doubt that he will — someone still would be needed to run the day-to-day operations of the company like Edgar Baitzel did until his death. Rountree is not the appropriate person. He oversees the Music Center.

An article appeared in the LA Times on July 6 which addressed LA Opera’s desire to recruit a vice president of marketing and communications when the company already has a director of communications and a director of marketing, plus staff. Although the company’s press relations could be improved upon, either a vice president should be hired without the other two positions, or the two positions should remain without a vice president. An additional position is a waste of money in light of the company’s finances. The problems are not due to poor public relations, press or marketing: they are the result of poor decision-making from the top, which is where the changes should occur. The Domingo-Thornton Young Artist Program should be competitive with the programs in other major companies. That is one area for growth.

The Los Angeles Opera Board of Directors must wake up and act, not follow. The people who live in LA deserve better.

Hier Is the Guiltiest One of Them All!

By Carol Jean Delmar

Rabbi Marvin Hier

Ring Festival LA is technically over although there are some events that are spilling into August, so I am taking this opportunity to respond to Rabbi Marvin Hier’s disturbing June 29 op-ed piece in the LA Times – “Holocaust: A huge word made small.”

On the surface it appears that Hier, the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, is doing a noble deed by listing various political figures who have drawn analogies between various current political happenings and the Holocaust, thus trivializing and devaluing an event in history which has no equal: the brutal torturing and merciless killing of 6 million Jews. At first glance, the argument seems sound. Then one realizes that it is Hier himself who is far more guilty of making light of the Holocaust than the people he accuses.

Hier’s list of examples includes Jerry Brown “who likened the attack ads of Meg Whitman . . . to the tactics employed by Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels”; Sarah Palin who “criticized President Obama’s handling of the BP crisis . . . recommending . . . an article by Thomas Sowell that compared Adolf Hitler’s use of a financial crisis to give himself dictatorial powers to Obama’s role in creating the BP escrow fund”; columnist David Sirota who described the BP disaster as an “ecological holocaust”; pro-life advocate Mike Huckabee who spoke of “the holocaust of liberalized abortions”; Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) who compared the lack of adequate healthcare insurance to a “holocaust in America”; and Lillian Rodriguez Lopez who likened the Arizona immigration law (“a bill that the Wiesenthal Center criticized”) to “tactics used by the Nazis in Germany.”

Whether you agree with these political positions or not, most of the examples either allude to the practices of the Nazis or to the general word “holocaust,” which refers to the systematic destruction of a people rather than to “the” Holocaust, which occurred during World War II when the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “holocaust” as “a mass slaughter of people” or “a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life.” Another words, the general word “holocaust” might also be synonymous with “genocide” as in the Armenian genocide, the genocide in Darfur or other devastating events.

With reference to the Palin incident: Hitler’s followers were “willing executioners” (per author Daniel Goldhagen). However when Hitler came to power, they were naively looking for economic relief without anticipating the catastrophic events to follow. Palin simply agreed with Sowell who drew a link between a failing economy that enabled the rise to power of a fascist who lived by his own rules and a president who Sowell believes is disregarding constitutional law to formulate policy. Palin and Sowell stopped short of mentioning the Holocaust. Their assertions were about law and democracy.

As for Lopez’s comment and the Wiesenthal Center’s position on the Arizona immigration law, there is no comparison between the law and the “tactics used by the Nazis in Germany.” Lopez’s comment was laughable, but the Wiesenthal Center’s response is also in error. There is nothing discriminatory occurring in Arizona. I was born in America and whenever I take a trip, I am asked to produce my passport. When I write a check, I am asked to show my driver’s license. The last time I parked at the Wiesenthal Center I was asked to show my driver’s license and to open the trunk of my car, then was obliged to pass through a security station before entering the lecture hall. It never entered my mind that I was being discriminated against or that my civil rights were being violated. I am proud to be an American and will gladly produce any documentation required to help ensure the safety of everyone around me.

My parents escaped from Nazi-occupied Austria, then Prague, and they spent a year in Cuba while waiting for their quota numbers to be called so that they could attain visas to the United States. It would have been illegal for them to have tried to sneak into Miami — so they didn’t attempt it. Many Jews were not as fortunate as they were and were forced to remain in Havana. I thank God every day that I was privileged enough to have been born in America where I have never been subjected to the whims of a fascist dictator. But I was born in the United States at a time when people respected the laws.

My parents’ passports had a big red “J” on the front page. “Israel” was written above my father’s name and “Sara” above my mother’s name. German and Austrian Jews in the 1930s and early ‘40s were legal citizens of the Third Reich, yet were discriminated against, thus forcing them to flee for their lives. They followed the laws of the countries they entered, and those countries had the right to exclude them if they could not produce the appropriate documentation. The SS St. Louis circled around Cuba and was not permitted to dock in Havana or the United States although Cuban and American leaders were aware that if the ship was turned back, the passengers would face an uncertain future, possibly death. This was unforgivable. Yet now we are supposed to give amnesty to everyone who enters the United States illegally, including their children, for we do not want to offend them by asking for documentation. Respecting one’s civil rights is essential to our society. Enforcing the law does not abuse those civil liberties.

That said, Rabbi Hier may have had cause to draw attention to those who have used the word “holocaust” too freely to make their points. But he totally forgot to remember the Holocaust himself when he, as the leading rabbi of the Wiesenthal Center, did nothing to stop the countywide Wagner festival, did nothing to broaden it, did nothing except allow the Wiesenthal Center/Museum of Tolerance to become a participant in the festival with the sole speaker on his turf being James Conlon who spouted erroneous proclamations denying the presence of Jewish caricatures and anti-Semitism in Wagner’s operas; pontificated about how Hitler “hijacked” and used Wagner’s music; and concluded that Wagner was an anti-Semite like many other artists of his generation, did not wish for the destruction of the Jews, and would have despised Hitler even though most of his family members became Nazis. His daughter-in-law had a relationship with Hitler and his grandson was a leader at a concentration camp. The list of Conlon’s proclamations proves that art for Conlon clearly takes precedence over morality.

Noted musicologist Gottfried Wagner explained in his lecture at the American Jewish University that a direct line leads from his great-grandfather Richard Wagner to Hitler. Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, the Wiesenthal Center’s director of interfaith affairs, was quoted in the Los Angeles Daily News on May 3, 2009 as having said: “My concern is that Wagner was one of the literary architects of the Holocaust. He was the one who wrote you cannot abstract the artistry from the artist.” For The Forward (May 1, 2009), he said: “We would be much happier if Los Angeles would find other musical heroes to celebrate. As long as there are Holocaust survivors alive – and there are many in Los Angeles – public accolades for Richard Wagner are a terrible slight.”

In a subsequent correspondence to me, Adlerstein wrote that the Wiesenthal Center’s position would be determined by his “employer.” Later he wrote me: “We are not – for a variety of reasons – going to lead a battle against the Festival. We will continue to make it clear that we would have preferred that such a festival [aside from the ‘Ring’ performances] have nothing to do with Wagner. If the festival won’t be pulled – and it won’t — I think the job of all of us ought to be to have people learn how toxic his beliefs were, and how music does NOT necessarily remain value neutral.”

Then on June 17, 2009, Adlerstein e-mailed me: “We communicated our displeasure, made suggestions about remedies – including, but not limited to dropping Wagner. But we don’t have the resources for a protracted battle.” A day later he wrote me: “We will also not be seen as ‘with them’ – but as having a working, non-combative relationship to preserve Jewish interests.”

So what did the Wiesenthal Center do? The Center became a festival participant with James Conlon as the sole speaker at a lecture which perplexed many in attendance and incited a protest from an observant Orthodox Jew.

It has therefore struck me as odd that the day before the conclusion of the festival, Rabbi Hier would be so quick to suddenly “remember” the Holocaust by attacking people who used the word “in ways that cheapen it.”

“The Holocaust was a horrific atrocity and watershed event in human history. The meaning of the word is being distorted and demeaned in political rhetoric and casual comparisons,” the op-ed piece asserted.

Hier may have attacked others for having used the word as part of political rhetoric, but he has also proved that for the last year, the actual horrific event, not just the word, was removed from his memory bank. His organization participated in a festival that honored a vehement racist — one of the major architects of the Holocaust — and it disseminated erroneous information that is contrary to the research published by most scholars on Wagner today.

Rabbi Hier is far more guilty of trivializing the Holocaust than the people he has so pointedly accused. For a rabbi known for combatting anti-Semitism, bigotry and hate, he certainly missed the boat with the “Ring” festival. I hope that he prioritizes better in the future as he weighs his politics and loyalties to the Jewish community.

Gottfried Wagner

Let the Truth Be Heard!

By Carol Jean Delmar

The most stunning observation I made after attending the symposium on Richard Wagner’s music and anti-Semitism at the American Jewish University on June 6 was that the event garnered very little press attention; there were empty seats; and James Conlon, who had so outspokenly voiced his arguable opinions on Wagner’s anti-Semitism at the Wiesenthal Center, uttered not one controversial comment at the AJU. The LA Times generated at least five stories over the course of the next few days, but to my knowledge, failed to print one on the lecture to date, which featured testimony by the great-grandson of Richard Wagner who substantiated claims that his family had been embroiled in Nazism.

To better understand the significance of my observations, I will list the two points of view on Wagner, his art and anti-Semitism that have been widely communicated and publicized by LA Opera, one view which takes a middle ground, and the two views that have been suppressed to better promote the “Ring” festival.

— No. 1 (widely communicated, much of it by LA Opera’s music director James Conlon who has been lecturing throughout the county):

Wagner was a great artist. Wagner was a racist. You can separate the two and honor the artist. The characters in his operas were not Jewish caricatures. Hans Sachs’s final aria in “Die Meistersinger” had nothing to do with German supremacy. There is no anti-Semitism in his music and dramas. Wagner would have despised Adolf Hitler. His music had nothing to do with the Nazi regime. Hitler hijacked and used Wagner’s music. There is no link between Wagner and the fact that most of his family members became Nazis and failed to apologize for his behavior. Wagner was an anti-Semite just like many other artists of his generation. He did not wish for the destruction of the Jews. He just wanted them to go away. Ring Festival LA is patterned after the festivals in Bayreuth.

— No. 2 (widely communicated):

All of the above with variations; however Wagner might have embraced Hitler and become a Nazi. We do not know how involved he would have become with the Third Reich. His music was the soundtrack of the Holocaust.

— No. 3 (mentioned as a middle ground):

Wagner was a great artist. Wagner was a racist. You can separate the two and honor the artist for his music. But Wagner’s political philosophies can be found in his works. Some of his characters have the physical characteristics and vocal mannerisms of what Wagner saw in Jews. Hans Sachs does sing about German purity in art. There is anti-Semitism in Wagner’s music and dramas, so the man and his art do harmonize and combine to create “Gesamtkunstwerk” or total works of art. Wagner might have enjoyed being part of Hitler’s entourage. His music was the soundtrack for the Holocaust. His family members heeded his philosophies and became Nazis. Wagner just wanted the Jews to go away.

— No. 4 (mentioned but mostly concealed):

All of the above except that Wagner’s “great solution” paved the way for Hitler’s “Final Solution.” His influence on Hitler through his essays and music made him a singular anti-Semitic personality and the forerunner of the Holocaust. He wanted a world free of Jews and wrote that he wished for their destruction. But still, the No. 4 person is able to celebrate and honor Wagner for his music.

— No. 5 (concealed and suppressed – would detract from ticket sales and promotion of the 115-event LA Bayreuth festival):

Wagner was a great artist or Wagner wasn’t a great artist. You can appreciate his art or not appreciate his art. Wagner was a racist. You cannot separate the man from his art. He created characters to resemble his bigoted perception of Jews. Hans Sachs’s final aria is about German supremacy. There is anti-Semitism in Wagner’s art. He would have been flattered to have had close ties with Hitler and to know that his music was revered as the soundtrack of the Holocaust. It was only natural for his family members to have been influenced by his philosophies and subsequently become Nazis. Wagner wrote about the “Jewish Question” (“Know Thyself”) and wanted the destruction of the Jews (“Judaism in Music”). Wagner’s “great solution . . . there [will] be no longer any Jews” (from “Know Thyself”) paved the way for Hitler’s “Final Solution.” His moral indiscretions and racism have made it unthinkable to celebrate him as the sole honoree of a massive arts festival. Patterning a festival after the Bayreuth Festival is an abominable analogy in light of the fact that a cloud hangs over Bayreuth due to the Wagner family’s Nazi past, Hitler’s presence at Bayreuth, his relationship with Wagner’s daughter-in-law Winifred, Wagner’s daughter’s marriage to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, his grandson’s position as a leader of the Flossenbürg concentration camp, etc. Bayreuth was conceived as a shrine to Wagner’s music and fanatical politics. His behavior cannot be covered up or disregarded. No apologies or excuses for him are warranted. He was the forerunner of the Holocaust. His immorality supersedes his art.

So why do I mention these various depictions which may seem a bit redundant and boring? I mention them because LA Opera and its followers have spent the greater part of a year drilling into the public that Ring Festival LA is justified because you can separate the man from his art, celebrate him as an artist and forget all of the other essentials which LA Opera either hides, denies or excuses. The first two illustrations have made everything feasible for LA Opera. The company labels Wagner an anti-Semite, yet still celebrates him, and the public receives a slanted education on his music and racism.

The third illustration is far superior to the previous two. It takes a middle position and for the most part would probably coincide with Marc Weiner’s analyses. Weiner, a professor of Germanic Studies at Indiana University and the highly acclaimed author of “Richard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination,” was the keynote speaker. He is known for spelling out the physical and vocal Jewish traits in Wagner’s characters. Yet here is a man who still relishes hearing Wagner’s music and would argue in favor of the “Ring” festival. Alas, people like me are glad that he is around to dispel the advocates of No. 1, but he savors the music too much to allow Wagner’s immoral traits to interfere with his guilt-free pleasure. He therefore has the ability to mingle and be accepted by the No. 1 Wagnerians while still being accepted by the non-Wagnerians who fit into Nos. 4 and 5. At the very least, I hope that he is able to lure the No. 1’s into the No. 3 category. Every little bit helps.

The last two categories are the hidden and suppressed positions. Peter Gimpel, the heckler at the Wiesenthal Center, could not tolerate the No. 1 position because his views coincide more closely with No. 5, and he knows that the evidence exists to refute No. 1. LA Opera leaders are aware of the data, but they continue to communicate No. 1 and suppress No. 5. The public has been educated with inaccurate information and is therefore unable to draw the proper conclusions. So Gimpel, a scholarly independent publisher of Judaica, became excited and attempted to be heard.

I too am in the No. 5 camp and do not believe as E. Randol Schoenberg was portrayed by the afternoon moderator per an article in the Jewish Journal – that the Jews should “get over it” and appreciate Wagner alone for his music. How can anyone get over Wagner, who philosophized by ranting repeatedly in his essays for the annihilation of the Jews?

The symposium at the American Jewish University could have exposed the LA Opera charade, but the LA Times, which is a sponsor of the festival, did not write a story after the event thus far. There is still time. Only the Jewish Journal, another sponsor of the festival, briefly touched upon the issues. I also did not see Eli Broad or Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky in the auditorium. I was hoping that this lecture would stimulate their thought processes.

James Conlon, who fits most clearly into the No. 1 category and represents LA Opera as its music director, seemed to fear the exposure. After all, Marc Weiner had disproved some of his Wagnerian abstractions in the morning. And Gottfried Wagner would be able to invalidate other Conlonisms after he left. Please see my post on “James Conlon at the Wiesenthal Center.”

He appeared ill-at-ease, seemed more humble than usual and even a little insecure. He did not offer any of his Wagnerian opinions and spent his few minutes praising LA Opera for “its coming of age” which he called its “Bar Mitzvah.” The Sigi Ziering Institute, which was named after Marilyn Ziering’s late husband, sponsored the symposium, and Conlon thanked her for her support. Ziering gave $3.5 million to initiate LA Opera’s “Recovered Voices” project. Conlon said no more and departed for his pre-performance lecture at the Music Center followed by his conducting gig of the final opera in the first cycle, “Götterdämmerung.”

Conlon had played it safe. It was a smart move, I thought. Maybe he’s learning.

Next it was Gottfried Wagner’s turn to speak. The renowned musicologist and multimedia director slipped into Los Angeles from Milan without fanfare. Wagner, the author of “Twilight of the Wagners: The Unveiling of a Family’s Legacy,” was ostracized by his family for disclosing its secrets and ties to the Third Reich. How dare he expose evidence that the family had attempted to hide. How dare he be courageous and moral. How dare he reveal what Bayreuth really represented, even after the family’s supposed de-Nazification.

Gottfried Wagner continues to set the record straight today. Always on the side of the Jews, he stopped off on Shabbos to mingle with congregants at a local temple. His welcoming to LA was tepid. The Los Angeles powers wondered what he would say. The answer is that he offered a variation of what he maintained in the Tony Palmer documentary shown at UCLA a few weeks earlier, but this presentation was live in LA.

He made his points convincingly with artwork and projections. He spoke of the old Bayreuth and the Bayreuth after 1945. He commented about his great-grandfather’s obsession with the “superiority of the German race,” linked Alberich and Mime to “dark Jewish figures,” referred to Richard Wagner’s hope that Germany would “be free of Jews” (from his essays “Hero-dom and Christendom” and “Know Thyself”), commented about Cosima’s “Diaries” and fascist Winston Stewart Chamberlain’s marriage to his great-grandfather’s daughter Eva, pointed to Wieland Wagner’s role as a leader of the Flossenbürg concentration camp, and addressed the differences between Wagner and other anti-Semitic artists, to show that his great-grandfather’s brand of anti-Semitism was unique and paved the way for Hitler.

He endured rude comments from speaker Sander Gilman during the roundtable discussion, who didn’t stay on topic and attacked him on a personal level in an unstatesmanly fashion. The audience was on Gottfried Wagner’s side; and when the lecture was over, people congregated onstage to talk to him. After all, who could be more credible in substantiating the truths about the Wagner family than a member of the family?

There is no way to determine in which category Gottfried Wagner would want to be included. His views might be a mixture of the final three.

Gottfried Wagner is an independent thinker who evaluates his great-grandfather’s music and genius realistically without excusing him or his family for their failings. He believes that his great-grandfather created total works of art which integrated his racist intent into the body of the compositions and dramas.

Aware of the controversies surrounding LA Opera’s festival and “Ring” production, Gottfried Wagner came to LA to communicate his singular message without regard to the strife. On the Monday after the symposium, he boarded a plane back to Milan just as he had arrived the previous Thursday – quietly and without fanfare. His presence in LA has still made a difference.

The American Jewish University

Richard Wagner (1813-1883)

Laughter From the Tomb: From the Files of Eugene Blum

Dedicated to Zev Yaroslavsky, Eli Broad, Marc Stern and Barry Sanders

By Albert Friedman

July 13, 2001

The sound you hear is laughter from the tomb of Richard Wagner, the patron saint of Nazism.

“What would I have done without the Jews?” he asks, chortling. “I derided their appearance, claimed they smelled bad, judged them decadent, craven, degenerate, crass, money-grubbing, shallow, pestilential, impious, incapable of creating great art, and, above all, I advocated their annihilation. I wrote and published countless articles lambasting them. I inspired a future generation of my countrymen to destroy them and their works.

“Yet while I lived, they swarmed around me, as I once wrote, ‘like flies,’ flocked to performances of my operas, lent me money (which I did not bother to repay), staged and directed my operas and even sang in them, and now they still honor me and support my art! They have always befriended me, defended me, served me, fostered my works. The fact that I am so highly honored posthumously is due, at least in some measure, to the zeal and enthusiasm of legions of this abominable and accursed race. So I say, ‘Hail to the Jews! Long may they suffer.’ ”

More laughter from the tomb.

Dedication by CJD

Wagner was a genocidal racist who was the forerunner of the Holocaust. We do not celebrate such racists with a 115-event arts festival.

LA Opera moved ahead with Ring Festival LA without the fiscal means.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors endorsed the festival, then bailed LA Opera out while the city, county and state remain in fiscal crisis.

LA Opera still has a projected deficit. The tourists aren’t coming. The tickets aren’t selling.

The production is a disaster – disrespectful of the singers, musicians and composer.

It is time for donors and city, county, arts, religious and educational leaders to end the cover-up. It is time for LA Opera and the media to come clean. – CJD

As printed in THE LOS ANGELES TIMES:

Culture Monster

All the Arts, All the Time

LA’s ‘Ring’ cycle begins with protests outside, mixed reaction inside

May 30, 2010 |  2:13 pm

While Los Angeles Opera’s production of Richard Wagner’s epic “The Ring of the Nibelung” was the main event at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion on Saturday night, two dozen protesters outside did their best to upstage opening night.

A well-dressed crowd gathered for the start of the company’s first full production of the 19-hour cycle, which began with a performance of “Das Rheingold,” the opening chapter of the Wagner’s magnum opus.

They were greeted by about 25 protesters who stood outside on the Music Center Plaza with banners that denounced Wagner and the county’s decision late last year to approve an emergency loan for the financially stretched opera company.

One banner read: “Wagner: Loved by Nazis, Rejected by Humans.” Another said: “LA County: $14 Million to promote Nazi Wagner, Layoffs for Music Teachers.”

The protesters identified themselves as supporters for Lyndon LaRouche, the eccentric political activist and frequent presidential candidate who once led the US Labor Party. The group handed out fliers published by the Schiller Institute, an organization founded by LaRouche’s wife, Helga.

The fliers denounced Wagner’s anti-Semitic personal views and criticized the county for rescuing the opera company. “Does Los Angeles County have nothing better to do … than bail out LA Opera, so that it can celebrate the monstrous sexual fantasies, and the cult of violence, of that vile anti-Semite, Wagner?” read the flier.

Stephen Rountree, who serves as chief operating officer of LA Opera and president of the Music Center, said in a statement that “dialogue is good and we welcome all conversations” in connection to the “Ring.”

In December, the LA County Board of Supervisors approved a $14-million loan to the opera company, which at the time said it was $20 million in debt. The loan is intended to help keep LA Opera afloat through mid-2010.

On Saturday, the protesters unfurled their banners in front of the Music Center fountain, facing the Pavilion. But security guards forced them to leave the grounds, saying that they did not have permission to be there. The group later positioned itself at the foot of the steps leading to the Music Center from Grand Avenue.

“Don’t catch ‘Ring’-worm tonight,” said one protester to arriving audiences. The group also performed a cappela versions of the “Ode to Joy” passage from Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony and the Chorus of Hebrew Slaves from Verdi’s “Nabucco.”

Audiences expressed mixed reactions to the protesters. “Ridiculous!” shouted one passerby. “It’s great music despite his beliefs,” said another.

Brittany Gash of Inglewood was attending “South Pacific” at the Ahmanson Theater but stopped to survey the action. “I think the ‘Ring’ Festival is a sham,” she said. “I consider myself a music lover, but I don’t think Angelenos can relate to this production. It’s not an accessible piece for the public.”

Sara Joslin, who teaches dance in the LA Unified School District, said she doesn’t support the protesters but added that “I’m supportive of music teachers who are being unfairly laid off.”

Inside the Pavilion, the big unveiling of the “Ring” appeared to go smoothly, with audiences giving “Das Rheingold” a standing ovation. There was no audible booing for experimental director Achim Freyer, who had received boos during the stand-alone performances of the “Ring” operas this season and last season.

After the performance, audiences appeared to have diverse reactions to the production.

Marisha Morris of L.A. left the performance early. “I thought with all the money and time put into it that there would be more to see on stage,” she said. “I thought the singing was good, but I was expecting more theatrics.”

Another attendee, who declined to be named, said the staging was “an incoherent mess” and that whoever designed it “had to be high.” The attendee added, “I can accept abstractness, but only if there’s intelligence behind it.”

Richard Hammer of San Francisco said this was his 17th “Ring” production. “It’s very imaginative and spectacular,” he said. “It doesn’t always work, but I would rather see lasers and special effects than people carrying spears and wearing horned helmets.”

– David Ng, with additional reporting by Charles McNulty

Linda Watson and John Treleaven
Photo: Monika Rittershaus

When speaking on the record was the only option for Linda Watson and John Treleaven, why are they being scrutinized?

By Carol Jean Delmar

I was happy to read in the LA Times that two of the leading singers in LA Opera’s “Ring” production have spoken out against designer-director Achim Freyer’s staging, costumes and set design (“A ‘Ring’ divided” and “Lead singers voice strong dissent over LA Opera’s ‘Ring’ cycle,” May 13). I like to think that I spurred them on since I wrote in my review of “Götterdämmerung”: “If I had been cast as Brünnhilde, I simply wouldn’t have submitted myself to such degradation.” (For a full rundown, please see “’Ring’ Reviews” at the top of this site.)

My father was an opera singer in Vienna and Prague in the late 1930s. I grew up believing that opera was about voice. We listened to and talked about the great singers of the past, and although I attended some opera productions, I studied voice and did more listening than watching. In my youth, if people who lived in Los Angeles really wanted to hear international singers, they tended to take a trip to the San Francisco Opera. Los Angeles has come a long way with LA Opera, but this costly “Der Ring Des Nibelungen” will set it back years. The company’s reputation has been tarnished at home and abroad. The escalating costs of this “Ring” have ruined future seasons in terms of quantity and quality. The underhanded PR tactics to save face and secure a loan from governmental sources at a time when city, county and state funds are dwindling have put a bitter taste in the mouths of those in LA who are suffering. The attempts to excuse and cover up Wagner’s moral indiscretions in order to facilitate a massive county arts festival have been distasteful. And the Eurotrash production is disrespectful of Wagner and the singers and musicians who are performing in it.

If anything, opera is a singers’ medium. Singers deserve to be revered. I do not know that the general public understands the complexities involved in becoming an opera singer. The voice is a God-given gift, but it takes years of hard work to develop the craft. If a singer is not obsessed and driven, that singer will not make the grade. The voice is very intricate and many factors are joined to perfect vocal technique: support, breathing, muscular awareness and relaxation, and vocal placement, to name a few. If you think that patting your head and rubbing your stomach is difficult, just try singing. Add to this the ability to memorize music and text; sing with musicianship and expression; speak and sing in different languages; act, move and dance – and then you may comprehend what it takes to be an opera singer. Then comes years of sacrificing family ties and social activities to enable traveling and to remain in shape and ready to sing. Of course, there are glorious rewards for the fortunate few who succeed. And one of those rewards should be the commitment of directors and designers to create visions that are singer-friendly and void of directorial egotism.

Per the LA Times, Linda Watson (Brünnhilde) called the “Ring” set “the most dangerous stage I’ve been on in my entire career. . . . Your whole neck is tipped wrong,” she said. “It’s very painful to do it for hours.”

She explained that she became “so frustrated with the production’s lack of character development that she told Freyer to ‘buy one of my CDs and put it on instead of me.’” Then: “It takes years to be able to sing a ‘Ring,’” she said. “To have that not be important to him is very insulting.”

John Treleaven echoed that the “entire production has been a trying and difficult time” for him, then cited the two injuries he sustained on the steeply raked stage and the complete deterioration of his relationship with Freyer, who “expunged” almost all of the character development from his role as Siegfried.

David Ng, the author of the LA Times story, wrote that Gordon Hawkins (Alberich) left the cast because his mask “interfered with his hearing.”

That really says it all. How can a director-designer be so self-centered and inconsiderate of singers that he makes it impossible for them to hear? Granted, some inconsiderate conductors drown out singers with their orchestras. Singers often cannot hear their own voices onstage and must rely on their sense of feel to get through the rough passages. But here a designer has been so self-centered that his vision is more important to him than the singers he is directing. There should be NO place for such a director in opera.

The fact that Plácido Domingo was unavailable for comment and issued a wishy-washy statement siding with Freyer doesn’t say much for him as the company’s general director. And I love the comment by LA Opera’s vice president of artistic planning, Christopher Koelsch: “It’s hard for singers to understand the context of scale of what he’s [Freyer’s] doing. It seems like [Freyer] has not done the best job in selling that [to the cast],” he said.

LA Opera is clearly defending Freyer. After all, he drummed up the $32 million price tag that is dragging LA Opera downward into the caverns of the Nibelung dwarves who can neither see nor hear. Freyer should have designed the set and costumes with the singers in mind. Instead, LA Opera’s management is paving the way for opera directors to continue with their egotistical shenanigans at the expense of the singers and musicians who have labored long and hard to attain their stature as artists.

And what’s behind the story of the “three sources close to the production” who stated to the Times that “nearly every principal performer had expressed misgivings about the staging, though the sources would not speak for attribution because they were not authorized by the company to talk to the media”?

And what about the LA Opera source “who spoke [to the Times] on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the company,” but said that “its management structure doesn’t give singers someone they can turn to with their concerns”?

The employees are under such a tight rein that they can’t talk to the media without prior authorization. Likewise, the structure of LA Opera is such that it is implied that every reporter seek authorization from the communications director before speaking to anyone on staff or any artist currently performing. I once innocently made an appointment with a staff member who gave me a telephone interview. Nothing controversial was said. Well, you’d have thought that I’d committed carnage. The PR director threw a tirade. As he was scolding me, I thought to myself: “Hey, man – I don’t work for you. You’re supposed to be doing PR for the company to garner positive press. I don’t think that you’re doing your job.”

Unfortunately, when members of LA Opera’s staff “are” authorized to speak to the media, you get statements like: “Koelsch denied that the cast is generally unhappy with the director’s interpretation.” I mean, who is LA Opera trying to fool?

THE LA TIMES REBUTTAL:

A couple of days after the Times divulged the singers’ dismay, the paper published another piece that seemed to counteract or deflate the singers’ assertions (“Opera personalities voice their displeasure,” May 16). After all, the LA Times is a sponsor of the “Ring” festival.

Parterre Box’s James Jorden was quoted as having said that before a production opens, opera companies want to show that “people are working hard and everyone is cooperating.” He explained that otherwise a singer could be perceived as a poor colleague. “I would say that in general, the attitude now is to speak off the record or to wait until the production is over,”  he said.

Then the Times cited opera greats Maria Callas, Kathleen Battle and Angela Gheorghiu as if to link LA Opera’s exasperated artists with the diva syndrome when what is happening at LA Opera has nothing to do with divas but is just another effort to cover up the truth.

The severely raked stage has even jeopardized the “Recovered Voices” project, which exposes the works of composers who were persecuted by the Nazis. The last two productions had to be created on a raked stage to accommodate the $32 million “Ring.” An article by Seth Hoff on LA Opera’s website last year began: “Opera choreographer Peggy Hickey was on a mission. She had a 12-minute ballet to choreograph on a 30-degree raked stage for LA Opera’s spring 2009 production of Walter Braunfels’ ‘The Birds’ . . . and she was driving around LA looking for a hill to help in ‘mastering a [dance] vocabulary on a rake.’ She had already looked at and walked the rake that was also being used for LA Opera’s ‘Ring’ cycle and she realized that using the usual lifts and leaps to indicate flight wouldn’t work. After finding what she thought would be a suitable hill, she brought four dancers there to start to ‘play with new dimensions on an angle.’”

Sounds dangerous to me as I’m sure the singers in this year’s “The Stigmatized” also discovered. I know that I certainly didn’t enjoy watching them on that raked stage, although the projections enabled a vision of sets and scenery that should have been accomplished the traditional way.

And finally, even Tim Mangan of the Orange County Register had to get into the act. He wrote:

“In the Los Angeles Times today, singers Linda Watson (Brünnhilde) and John Treleaven (Siegfried) sound like a couple of cry babies complaining about Achim Freyer’s ‘Ring’ cycle at LA Opera. Even if they were right, which I feel they are not, it shows a certain lack of class to go public with their complaints at this time, just before the cycle is about to open. It’s worth noting, too, since they complain about the difficulty of negotiating Freyer’s raked stage, that neither singer is a paragon of athletic fitness.”

Well, Mr. Mangan, I don’t think it was in your best interests to butt in. Your mode of attack surely revealed your lack of class which will only serve to erode your credibility as a critic.

I have heard from reliable sources that singers other than Watson and Treleaven have indeed been frustrated by Freyer’s production. Vitalij Kowaljow as Wotan is one of them – but then my source wanted to remain anonymous.

I conclude by applauding Watson and Treleaven for speaking out. Singers should be treated with the respect due them, and their voices should be heard.

Los Angeles Opera lacks integrity, sound management and leadership. A complete reorganization is in order if the company is to survive.

Neal Stulberg Proves That It Could Have Been Done.

By Carol Jean Delmar

Neal Stulberg, UCLA

The old news is that in my introductory essay, I suggested that Ring Festival LA – 115 events with the “Ring” as its centerpiece — be expanded to include composers other than Richard Wagner to balance the programming. Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich proposed the idea to the Board of Supervisors, but Zev Yaroslavsky ramrodded a substitute motion through, and the Board endorsed the all-Wagner festival.

The new news is that the UCLA Department of Music – specifically Neal Stulberg, the director of orchestral studies who normally conducts the student orchestra — is proving that the festival could have been organized with the diversity Antonovich and I suggested.

As part of Ring Festival LA, James Conlon is conducting the UCLA Philharmonia on May 27 at 8 p.m. in Royce Hall, and there is not a glint of Wagner in the program – only the music of Franz Schreker, Alexander Zemlinsky and Arnold Schoenberg. I applaud Stulberg for his sensitivity and for having the fortitude to break the mold by performing what Conlon calls the  “recovered” works of composers who were persecuted by the Nazis.

Stulberg is acting as the narrator for Schoenberg’s stunning “A Survivor from Warsaw, Op. 46.” Hermann Prey gave a grippingly intense rendition which can be viewed on YouTube. The narration over orchestration with chorus creates an emotionally-charged six-minute score that leaves the audience speechless. The piece pays homage to victims of the Holocaust, the narrator being a concentration camp survivor from the Warsaw ghetto who describes how guards counted and beat Jews until they either died or were transported to death camps.

This concert celebrates the wonderfully talented students who make up the UCLA Chamber Singers, the UCLA Philharmonia and the UCLA University Chorus, and it gives them the opportunity to perform under the direction of Conlon’s skillful baton, which will strengthen the exisiting ties between the UCLA Department of Music and LA Opera.

It remains incomprehensible to me that LA Opera and the Board of Supervisors failed to see the advantages of a diversified festival free of controversy, which would have attracted a broader audience and been far more lucrative than a Wagner fest. This concert was originally set for Schoenberg Hall but was moved to the larger Royce venue because it has been so well-received. Similar programming would have been encouraging from other festival participants, which would have introduced the world to LA’s multitude of artistic and multicultural talent in a creatively free environment without constraints. Celebrating one anti-Semitic composer with a focus on one of his works does not accomplish this end.

Concert made possible by the Mickey Katz Chair in Jewish Music.

Program to include Zemlinsky’s Psalms 13 and 83, and Schreker’s Intermezzo for Strings and “Valse Lente.”

Bye, Bye, LA Times! Eli Broad is in the Wings — Maybe.

By Carol Jean Delmar

Extra! Extra! There are new developments on the Huffington Post saga. I have been replaced by “Ring” leader Barry Sanders. Yes, in spite of the fact that Stuart Whatley wrote me that I was dropped because “the ‘Ring’ opera situation . . . is a highly contentious issue with a great deal of acrimony between the different parties involved and we’d rather separate ourselves from it,” the Huffington Post has taken the opposite approach by joining other Los Angeles media organizations and becoming a part of the party.

Sanders is using the Huffington Post as a marketing tool. On Sanders’ first post, he wrote that in coming weeks he would be “blogging about Ring Festival LA event highlights, feedback from Angelenos, anecdotes and controversies.” Controversies? He acknowledged what he called James Conlon’s “brilliant” presentation at the Museum of Tolerance with no mention of the scholarly heckler who didn’t agree.

But by far the most disturbing announcement Sanders made can be found in his second post. “The media are partnering with us in new and innovative ways. . . . Our media partners are not simply playing the conventional roles of reporting and commenting on events, they are ‘in the conversation’ and are thus part of the Festival,” he wrote, specifically mentioning the LA Times. “Their writers are blogging, vlogging and tweeting all things ‘Ring,’” he concluded.

So now you tell me – am I supposed to take Mark Swed’s reviews seriously? Isn’t there a conflict of interest here? The LA Times’ editorial department has crossed over into advertising, and Sanders has admitted it on one of the most frequented news sites on the Internet.

The LA Times has lost all credibility for me. Sound journalistic practices have been abandoned, and the more respected Los Angeles Daily News isn’t large enough to compete nationally.

I am no longer obliged to continue proving my political assertions from previous posts since Sanders has provided the proof for me. LA Opera, the “Ring” festival, city and county leaders, Plácido Domingo, James Conlon, the LA Times, the Huffington Post, LACMA, MOCA, the Grand Avenue Project – everything is connected to Eli Broad.

Ring Festival LA was born at a round-table discussion at the LA Times, and the festival was subsequently announced in November 2008, with Broad, who contributed $6 million to the “Ring,” stating that the festival would “bring worldwide attention to our city and attract an increasing number of visitors.”

According to Reed Johnson’s Nov. 3 article in the LA Times, Broad and Domingo “discussed how to encourage the millions who annually visit Southern California’s major attractions to add a few days to their itinerary to take in festival activities.”

So voilà! Broad has influenced the LA Times to carry out the edict. He’d been interested in purchasing the Tribune Company-owned paper in 2007, but Sam Zell succeeded, paving the way for the company’s bankruptcy filing in 2008 and a possible sale in the future. In March 2009 at a lecture on business at the 92^nd Street Y in New York City, Reuters quoted Broad as having said, “I would like to see our foundation and others join together to own the LA Times.”

I wanted to put the Huffington Post matter to sleep but simply had to use this opportunity to show how hypocritical and deceitful the management has been. Whatley wrote me that they were distancing themselves from the festival, yet they are promoting it because they are beholden to bloggers Eli Broad, Zev Yaroslavsky, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Barry Sanders, and their local partner — the LA Times. After all, Broad may one day save it (if Haim Saban doesn’t do it first).

Every conceivable aspect of arts and politics in downtown LA has links to Broad, even what happened to me at the Huffington Post since my opinions didn’t fit in with the plan.

So when confronted by a reporter from LA Weekly, Huffington Post spokesman Mario Ruiz dreamt up another reason for blocking me and said that my “second post didn’t add anything new to the discussion about . . . LA Opera” when my second post was about Pasadena Playhouse, and my third post was blocked before an editor could read it.

As for my exchanges with the Huffington Post, if you are not a celebrity (or maybe Barry Sanders), the Huffington Post leaves bloggers to fend for themselves. Dan Tynan’s comment in response to a July 20 post by Tina Dupuy on FishbowlLA couldn’t have said it better. “Just getting huffpo to return emails counts as a major triumph,” he wrote. I guess I should feel flattered that Whatley sent me an e-mail even if it wasn’t true and was a bit contentious.

All pettiness aside, though, I no longer care what is said about me because I understand that the powers in Los Angeles are simply doing what they deem necessary to crush or cover up every obstacle in their way, and the moral issue of having a Wagner festival is one of them. I believe that people are starting to wise up and realize that everything written and said has merely been rhetoric — because the Emperor has no clothes!  And we in Los Angeles no longer have a newspaper.

Why I’m Not Saluting

By Carol Jean Delmar

Eli Broad

A few hours after I filed my last post, I read Tim Rutten’s op-ed in the LA Times, and he made it appear that Eli Broad’s museum in downtown LA is just about a done deal, or at least he’d like it to be. His piece definitely aimed to encourage the powers that be to secure the museum for downtown LA, which probably pleased Broad.

Yet both Beverly Hills and Santa Monica have been under consideration. Beverly Hills has officially concluded discussions with Broad. But according to a press release dated April 15, City Manager Jeff Kolin said that “should alternate sites not come to fruition,” the city remains “open to further partnership discussions.”

City of Santa Monica spokesperson Kate Vernez confirmed that “Santa Monica is still definitely being considered for the Broad museum” and “the decision will be made in the spring.”

Just as Ring Festival LA has been pushed through as part of the downtown political enterprise I described in my previous post, with a little help from the LA Times, the LA Times is also promoting the Broad museum for Bunker Hill.

After Rutten listed a number of Broad’s accomplishments as a patron of the arts, he wrote: “None of this is a secret, and penalizing him for the breadth of his civic engagement is, at this point, worse-than small-minded.”

Well, I guess I’m small-minded because Broad’s actions are hardly altruistic.

First, if Broad is really interested in “civic engagement,” I recommend that he secure a job in public service. About the only “civic engagement” I see from Broad is Broad writing a check.

I do not fault him for spreading his wealth around. At least he comes up with the goods which he has acquired righteously unlike Alberto Vilar. But as I mentioned in my previous post, his contributions come with ropes, and everyone in LA is bowing down to Allah because whatever Eli wants, Eli gets.

LA Opera wanted to perform the “Ring.” Broad enabled it to happen. LA Opera wanted a Wagner festival. Broad enabled it to happen, all the while knowing that it would be honoring a man who advocated racism and genocide and whose family members were Nazis. “It’ll be good for the city,” he was no doubt saying. “Great way to promote my museum.”

For Zev Yaroslavsky, it is a win-win situation no matter where the museum lands. His supervisorial district includes the cities of Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. But he no doubt aims to please Broad.

So Broad and Yaroslavsky have enabled Ring Festival LA to move forward in their quest to achieve other goals that have nothing to do with opera or Wagner. For them, Wagner’s racist agenda has been an obstacle which they have managed to cover up and overcome so that city and county leaders could envision the larger picture.

So all the elected officials; city and county leaders; educational, religious and arts leaders have gathered around the new King of Bunker Hill, and the LA Times is right there beside them.

They were dead set on a Wagner festival. When LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich presented his proposal to balance it, county leaders stood behind Broad’s Siamese twin, Yaroslavsky, and sided with the Wagnerians.

To this day I have no idea why expanding the festival would have been offensive to Wagnerians. Oh, yes – they’re Wagnerians. They do not believe in cultural diversity.

So “Heil Broad.” At least this time one of “our” guys is commanding the forces.

Since Broad has been co-chair of the Grand Avenue project’s board of directors, Rutten pointed out that there might be a conflict of interest. But never mind, Rutten explained, forget all of that. Broad has saved so many other downtown ventures that he’s beyond reproach.

Hmmm. The Grand Avenue Authority – which consists of the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency and the County of LA – is implementing the project. The Grand Avenue Committee, which is the public and private entity of the project, is assisting the Authority. Its supporters include the city of Los Angeles, LA County, and the Broad Foundation. Broad has been co-chairman of the Committee and has therefore negotiated on both sides of the table. And who’s on the governmental decision-making side? Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina is the Authority’s chairperson, who just happens to have voted in favor of the Wagner fest. How’s that for cronyism?

Rutten wrote in July that the festival would be “an important step toward attracting the sort of arts tourism many believe will be an increasingly crucial part of the city’s economic future.”

Yes, well, look at the city now. If anything, the festival has become an extravagant $32 million monkey on the city’s financially beleaguered back. About the only substantial tourism to come out of the festival is the Opera America conference, but LA Opera could have hosted the conference and brought in the same tourists without it.

Rutten is now talking about tourism again; only this time he is using economist Jack Kyser as his mouthpiece: “Construction of the Broad museum downtown would be a major event for all of LA County, because tourism is our No. 1 industry. Retail, on the other hand, is the most toxic part of the property market because we’ve overbuilt to such an extent there.”

What? There? Where? A parking lot?

On the other hand, Kyser continued: “Cultural tourists who will be attracted in even greater numbers to Grand Avenue if this museum were built, [will] stay longer and spend more than any other tourist.”

I don’t think so, Mr. Kyser. The No. 1 industry in Los Angeles is the motion picture industry. If you want to see real tourism and spending, build a television-movie museum there. The Museum of Contemporary Art couldn’t be bringing that much tourism to LA. Rutten wrote that Broad “bailed it out” recently when it “flirted with financial disaster.” I guess Broad wanted to save it to advance his own venture across the street.

Jon Regardie wrote an amusing piece in the LA Downtown News: a timeline of highlights before, during and after Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s State of the City address on April 20. He writes that at 3:58 p.m., “Eli Broad enters, and in the next couple minutes it’s like the nobles who used to line up to pay their respects to French kings. Greuel speaks with him, followed by Garcetti. Then Zine approaches. Then holy cow, Councilman Bill Rosendahl comes over and gives him a hug! Are you allowed to do this? I thought King Eli had that look-but-don’t-touch thing. Can Rosendahl get whacked for this?”

At 4:10: “King Eli sits first.”

Then at 5:25: “Forty minutes after the speech, I see Police Chief Charlie Beck giving a tour of the new LAPD headquarters to Eli Broad. He points out the collection of motorcycles in the lobby of the building. Wow, a personal tour from the chief. It’s good to be the king.”

Please note that Villaraigosa has also endorsed the festival, yet speaks every year at the Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony in the Pan Pacific Park. I fail to understand how he can commemorate the victims of Hitler’s National Socialism one day and celebrate Wagner the next. I guess it’s the Broad thing.

So, yes, I penalize Broad for his “civic engagement” because it isn’t done selflessly. We, the people, have elected our local leaders, but they are not leading – Broad is. His museum will not generate the tax revenue the county originally calculated. Delayed construction with fee deferrals will impact the county as well.

People have told me not to get involved in the politics of the festival – stick to the truths about Wagner, they tell me. Rabbi Harold Schulweis says that he wants everyone to know about Wagner. Well, as long as Broad has a follower like Zev Yaroslavsky who has forgotten his Jewish roots to please another Jew who has also forgotten his, Wagner’s truths cannot be told. When a financier becomes so powerful that the city revolves around him so that all the elected leaders, religious, arts and educational leaders stand in line to kneel before him — then our democratic ideals are being sacrificed. It is normal for art to be the most significant consideration of an opera company, but when LA Opera wanted to use Wagner to celebrate its existence, city and county leaders should have put the brakes on. Broad should have put on the brakes and Yaroslavsky should have put on the brakes.

It is not acceptable to move forward with an event which is diametrically opposed to the democractic ideals that have been imbedded in us since elementary school just because our political leaders are beholden to a despot and want to further their own self-ambitions.

So I have taken it upon myself to speak out because I believe that this festival is toxic; but since it is happening, as Rabbi Schulweis has indeed suggested: We would like everyone to know about Wagner.

Eli Broad and Zev Yaroslavsky Exposed

By Carol Jean Delmar

Barry Sanders, Carol Henry, Zev Yaroslavsky, Edythe Broad, Placido Domingo, Eli Broad, Marc Stern. Photo by Steve Cohn

Ring Festival LA has very little to do with Richard Wagner. Wagner is just the front for a massive political enterprise in downtown LA with philanthropist Eli Broad and Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky in control. Every time “Ring” festival leader Barry Sanders says that the festival is a celebration of “the city’s coming of age,” he means it.

Broad has been negotiating with LA County officials and the cities of Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and Los Angeles for a Broad museum to house his personal art collection. Downtown LA seems to be his favored location just south of the Walt Disney Concert Hall.

“A billionaire philanthropist whose beneficence comes with not just strings but with ropes . . . he [Broad] is known to pull his support, resign from a board or, in some cases, decline to fulfill his financial promises when a project comes together in a way he does not like.”

So wrote Jennifer Steinhauer in the Feb. 7, 2010 New York Times article, “Iron Checkbook Shapes Cultural Los Angeles.”

“Eli does nothing without strings,” said Museum of Contemporary Art trustee Jane Nathanson.

“If we start with a game plan, I want to make sure it happens,” said Broad, who gifted LA Opera with $6 million before the Achim Freyer “Ring” was announced in 2006. At that press conference, Plácido Domingo said that Broad had made the “new production of Wagner’s four-part masterpiece possible.”

It is clear that the former real estate developer and SunAmerica founder hopes to make the city of LA a cultural Mecca with his name attached to it. A Democrat — he has given generously to arts, science and educational organizations, and to politicians on both sides of the political aisle, although mostly to Democrats.

It is only natural that city and county leaders would be beholden to him. In light of the financial crisis facing LA, civic leaders are pursuing every avenue for possible relief; plus they like the idea of showcasing LA’s cultural scene. As part of the Grand Avenue Project, some say Broad’s museum would bring tourists and money into LA and would be a welcome addition to the entertainment complex atop the downtown hill.

According to an article in the Daily News on April 22 (“Los Angeles city officials consider giving land to billionaire Eli Broad”), the project was “expected to generate millions of dollars in tax revenue . . . but the developer . . . has had difficulty obtaining funding.”

Although Broad would pay for the museum’s construction and operations as part of the proposal being considered, he would receive the land for free and would lease the city property for $1 per year for 99 years. The issue is a hot one since millions of dollars of potential tax revenue would be forfeited to benefit a private individual when that private individual has used his financial wherewithall to benefit the city in the past, and city and county leaders would like to ensure that Broad’s generosity continues.

“Because he spearheaded fundraising for the Music Center’s $274-million Walt Disney Concert Hall and is a major player in the Grand Avenue redevelopment project, Eli Broad’s name is strongly associated with the revitalization of downtown,” wrote Diane Haithman in an LA Times article dated March 6, 2008. In addition, Broad has been co-chairman of the Grand Avenue Committee which initiated the project.

So here you have LA Opera, a company that was on the brink of financial ruin, attempting to pay its bills and balance its books. Hypothetically speaking — for LA Opera, Ring Festival LA has meant financial aid, publicity and a guarantee that the “Ring” production would not combust. For civic leaders, it has meant more visibility, tourism, an infusion of new money, and it serves as an incentive to place the Broad museum in the heart of the city. And for Broad, the publicity and visibility make downtown LA a lucrative location for his museum where the Broad name would be revered for perpetuity.

It has been clear from the onset that Domingo and LA Opera music director James Conlon are Wagnerians. But the politicians in LA are not. When it became evident that Wagner’s shady history could jeopardize the outlined master plan with a potential backlash from the Jewish community, the organizers embarked on a propaganda campaign to minimize Wagner’s improprieties and associations with the Nazis, while still acknowledging his anti-Semitism, as was negotiated by LA Opera with Jewish leaders with political ties of their own.

The most prominent Jewish leader in the county is Zev Yaroslavsky – the primary elected official to endorse the festival. He has no doubt been torn between his allegience to the Jewish community, to contributors like Broad, and to his own ambitions, which no longer embrace sound moral values.

A diverse group of arts and educational organizations have joined in the festival celebration even though the majority of the events are all about Wagner. Many of the participants know very little about the composer. They only know that the city and county are sanctioning the festival, so they have joined in as partners – no questions asked.

I received an invitation to attend the 75^th birthday party of the Griffith Observatory, which is featuring a planetarium show of lights backed by Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries.” The observatory is under the auspices of the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks. The commission president is Barry Sanders, who is the leader of the festival.

When I spoke to Sherry Dewane, a board member of Friends of the Observatory, she knew little about Wagner, had never thought about the moral implications of participating in the festival, and told me that the city had given the observatory the go-ahead. She explained that every arts organization she was aware of was participating, so the observatory just jumped right in.

There is a direct link between LA Opera and the “Ring” festival with Broad, Yaroslavsky, the Grand Avenue Project, the museum, city and county leaders, and even Arianna Huffington. (Please click on the link at the end of this commentary.)

Broad’s philanthropy has been a boost to the city. Whether the museum should or should not be in downtown LA is not for me to decide. My concern revolves around the morality of having a 115-event festival that honors Richard Wagner — a racist who influenced Adolf Hitler with his concepts of Aryanism, German supremacy, cultural purity, anti-Semitism, and genocide. I could preach about Wagner’s tenets until the cows come home. This festival was a done deal from the get-go. LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich didn’t have a chance when he proposed expanding its scope. I didn’t have a chance when I approached city, county, religious, arts and educational leaders.

I never intended to take my argument out of the framework of the issues that relate to Wagner. But Wagner is only a front – an excuse for LA to have a celebration in spite of him. The truth about Wagner is being hidden; and even if it wouldn’t be, that wouldn’t change anything. The only thing that would have made a difference would have been an outcry from the people who live in LA. But since few Angelenos know or care about Wagner, the powers in Los Angeles have been able to cover up the truths and proceed with their agenda.

The lecture at the Wiesenthal Center on April 15 was an example of that cover up. Granted, an agitated and excited Orthodox Jew could not contain himself. But Yaroslovsky overreacted by grabbing and threatening him. If I had been an elected official, I would have let security handle the matter before getting involved. I do not understand why Yaroslavsky became so agitated. Maybe he realized that the heckler’s accusations were accurate and might have exposed truths that would have jeopardized the downtown master plan. After all, many people in the audience were skeptical of Conlon’s material and message.

Yaroslavsky seemed to be on his own turf at the Wiesenthal Center since he has been a friend of the Jewish community his whole life, and much of his district is on the Westside. But on April 15, he was running a Wagnerian show that seemed inconsistent with the person he represents, and the show was taking place in a venue that seemed inappropriate for it. I have spoken to people in the Jewish community who agree with my position on the festival, but they refused to be disloyal to Yaroslavsky. They just didn’t want to make waves.

Whether Ring Festival LA is about art for LA Opera or politics for Yaroslavsky, Broad and the leaders who have lined up behind them – the primary concern for everyone should be that the festival excuses Richard Wagner for his indiscretions and celebrates him, which is unacceptable. Politicians should not be listening to Wagnerians, and Wagnerians in the arts should not be lecturing on Wagner’s anti-Semitism. Los Angeles is a melting pot of diverse cultures. Wagner discriminated against all of them. If our leaders choose to overlook what Wagner represents, then it is time to elect some new leaders.

#    #    #

Ring Festival LA sponsors include: the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks, the County of Los Angeles, the LA County Arts Commission, the Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly, the Jewish Journal, KUSC and KCET.

Please read http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/media/huffpo-la-eli-broad/ to see the link between Broad, Yaroslavsky and Arianna Huffington, and to better understand why I was removed as a blogger on the Huffington Post.

Eli Broad and Zev Yaroslavsky at the Broad Stage

Renzo Piano, Eli Broad, Michael Govan, Zev Yaroslavsky at LACMA