audiences . The Met , largely unscathed in the financial department over the years , also has recently begun to suffer due to the fickle nature of opera audiences as can be discerned from Fielder . Though the two companies in their modern forms , I believe , do represent opera for all audiences , there will likely always be an association between NYCO and the people , and the Met with the elite . Perhaps this will diminish further as the years pass on . However , in the present artistic landscape , it likely doesn ’ t matter . Each institution represents a great deal of American operatic achievement and have inspired companies and performers nationwide . Perhaps that is the greatest contribution of opera and its institutions within New York to the domestic and global artistic world : they portray to different companies and audiences across the globe that opera is not only a European art form . New York has long served as the principal city in the United States on a global standpoint . Thus , by having such great domestic and international achievements from both institutions in the city itself , the United States can safely state its claim as a presence in the operatic world .
From more of an internal standpoint , these institutions and New York opera as a sub-genre have provided a great deal of artistic reprieve throughout the years . New York opera itself was a creative product of the WWII years and served to musically represent American and our country ’ s popular opera on what would become a global scale . Both NYCO and the Met served to provide artistic and monetary aid to New York City itself in a time of great crisis surrounding the terror attacks on September 11 , 2001 . The city was able to cope with these events by means of art , which also provided the inherent mentality that the city and country would continue to press on . Thus , the operatic contributions of New York City cannot simply be boiled down into that of a
27