La Scala vote ousts general director
MILAN — The board of La Scala voted on Thursday to oust its incoming general director at the end of his first season in the latest behind-the-scenes melodrama to roil the fabled opera house.
Salzburg Festival director Alexander Pereira had been brought on for five seasons, but the board voted to oust him when the upcoming 2014-15 season ends amid allegations of a conflict of interest.
La Scala board chairman Giuliano Pisapia, who is Milan's mayor, said Pereira overreached his powers by making a deal for La Scala to buy four operas from the Salzburg Festival, of which he is still director, before officially assuming his role at La Scala on Oct. 1.
‘‘Pereira without a doubt went beyond his powers,” Pisapia told reporters.
Pereira, who spent two decades with the Zurich Opera before heading to Salzburg in 2011, has said he was following common practices for European theaters.
Not since Ricardo Muti was pushed out as musical director in a worker mutiny nearly a decade ago has there been so much turmoil in La Scala's ranks. The controversy risks damaging La Scala's prestige just as Milan prepares to host Expo 2015, the world fair that will feature a concert series at La Scala.
Pereira's curtailed tenure could have consequences for La Scala's musical direction. Pereira had brought on Riccardo Chailly, replacing Daniel Barenboim in the role of musical director. Barenboim bowed out two years early to make way for Pereira's choice.
Pereira, 66, was named last June to replace Frenchman Stephan Lissner, who will depart on Sept. 1 for the Paris Opera. He spent nine seasons at La Scala. Pereira, sought for his business acumen and fundraising ability, has been working at La Scala in the intervening period, as Lissner has been working on his own transition into the Paris Opera.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.