There’s an odd twist in yesterday’s story about The Metropolitan Opera banning Opera News from reviewing its productions. Met creative director Peter Gelb has reversed his decision. Opera News is free to review productions at The Met because, “the public would miss Opera News not being able to review the Met, and we are responding to that.”

I can’t think of a time where I’ve seen Peter Gelb this candid before. He says that the decision was reversed because of a “groundswell of disappointment” from people online. I can only hope that it was the disappointment and not ego that fueled this decision.

My inner cynic says Gelb might have banned Opera News reviews just so he could win this debate. If no one responded, then Opera News wouldn’t be allowed to criticize his direction. If people did respond, he could demonstrate humility for once and act like he had the public’s interest in heart. I warned you it was cynical.

I want to believe the decision is sincere. It’s just so hard to imagine someone like Gelb wouldn’t anticipate a negative response to silencing the biggest opera publication in America. No matter how it happened, it’s a clear victory for criticism and free speech.

What do you think? Did Gelb and Opera News orchestrate the whole thing for headlines? Or did no one anticipate a huge falling out from losing reviews from one magazine? Sound off below.

The Metropolitan Opera Guild has officially requested the nation’s largest classical music magazine, Opera News, stop publishing criticism of their productions. Why? The writing is too negative for a publication connected to The Met.

According to the New York Times, features editor Brian Kellow wrote an essay about the artistic direction of The Met for the May issue, “The public is becoming more dispirited each season by the pretentious and woefully misguided, misdirected productions foisted on them.” Is it harsh? Yes. But it actually makes sense in the context of the full essay.

Peter Gelb, the current creative director of the Met, has a history of trying to control the discussion of his productions. It’s hard to blame him. His job is to drive up subscriptions and earn money to keep the company in business. Opera can be a hard sell and bad press can really impact sales.

I think demanding that a magazine stop writing criticism of Met productions is a step too far. Criticism hurts. However, silencing critics who love the medium so much that they’re willing to admit flaws means that you lose out on the glowing reviews that can sell tickets on your press material.

What do you think? Does Opera News have an obligation to keep discussion of the Metropolitan Opera Guild positive? Could any arts organization successfully silence critics? I know I’ve gotten a few “never again” e-mails from negative reviews, but that just means that I have to buy my own ticket or go as a plus one with someone else. Share your thoughts below.