Domingo is mentioned in Turin investigation

Domingo is mentioned in Turin investigation


norman lebrecht

June 23, 2020

La Repubblica reports that Placido Domingo’s name has been mentioned a police investigation into alleged corruption between a Swiss-Italian agency and the former sovrintendente of the Teatro Regio di Torino, William Graziosi.

It is alleged that, under Graziosi’s regime, the agency of Alessandro Ariosi tripled its commissions from 200,000 to 700,000 euros. Ariosi had helped Graziosi at his previous opera post in Kazakhstan. He is said to have profited from many engagements of Placido Domingo, who has pride of place on Ariosi’s website for ‘special collaboration’. He has also worked closely with Cecilia Gasdia at the Arena di Verona.

The investigation, which is at an early stage, continues.




  • A.L. says:

    Not surprised. There is good reason the powers that be continue to keep PD afloat and vice versa. A vicious cycle if you will. But the reason is NOT artistic quality or importance.

  • Doris Bacci says:

    In the article to which you refer there is no mention of Plácido Domingo by name.

    Is there any other article I missed?
    If so, you should link to it here.
    Otherwise, you should stick to the facts and wait for the rusult of the investigations.

    • V.Lind says:

      It’s in the link NL provided — first name up. Gone from yours. The articles are datelined but not timelined, so I do not know if his name was removed or added.

      • V.Lind says:

        What on earth is there to downvote about my comment?

        • Bruce says:

          LOL. Might be because you failed to call him a great maestro, and also failed to condemn his #metoo accusers. (The fact that the article has nothing to do — I assume — with his actual singing or any allegations is irrelevant.)

        • Karl says:

          I live for my downvotes. My best lines get plenty – metoo mouthfoamers. Just go with the flow bud.

      • David says:

        I’m noticing this site’s comment section attracts irrational ideologically motivated people. I guess it’s their only channel to release their frustration with their lives? If it helps them not kill themselves another day by downvoting your informative comment, I guess let them?

        • V.Lind says:

          I wasn’t trying to do anything other than a technical response. I understand downvotes when making an argument — this was simply information.

          Do you really think we should let them? Hmmm………………..

      • sycorax says:

        That you’re still not willing to believe in the “Maestro” as almost a saint?

        Well, I don’t do either.

  • Novagerio says:

    This is not exactly news. The system in Italy has worked like this for decades.

    • a colleague says:

      yep. First paragraph: “Le più belle voci del mondo come il tocco infallibile del grande giocatore, Placido Domingo e Diego Armando Maradona. Da San Siro alla Scala come dal Regio allo Juventus Stadium….”

  • George says:

    The link is above marked in red. “La Repubblica reports.”

  • Thinking aloud says:

    Why has Placido Domingo ‘s name been used to highlight this headline and investigation?

    As far as I can see the investigation has nothing whatsoever to do with Domingo and all to do with Ariosi Management and the former Intendant of Teatro di Regio Torino.

    It is just typical of this forum to use Domingo ‘s name for spurious reasons.

  • Francesca says:

    Placido Domingo’s name is only mentioned because Ariosi is his agent. Like dozens of others. That’s all.

  • fflambeau says:

    Corruption in Italy? Impossible!

  • Katerina Waldersee says:

    Sorry, but as far as I can see, Domingo‘s only connection with this story is that he is one of many artists whose agent is Ariosi. You are just using his name to attract attention to your misleading headline.

  • M2N2K says:

    The headline is grossly misleading and should have been corrected long time ago because, as correctly pointed out by several commenters above here, the name of Plácido Domingo was indeed mentioned once in an article about investigation, but apparently not at all in the investigation itself as claimed by the headline, which is a huge difference.