Ms. Bea goes to Washington
Matthew Heil
Marketing & Public Relations Manager
A quick note, bloggers, to those who are avid fans of CSPAN. (We know you are out there!) If you were watching you might have seen The Phoenix Symphony's violist and board member, Karen Bea, testifying to Congress on Thursday, April 19. The subject: restored funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
At the heart of her program was one of the Symphony's educational programs, the One Nation collaboration with the Salt River-Pima Indian community. Musicians from the orchestra give performances and lessons at the school during the year, and culmiate the activites with a side-by-side concert with orchestra members and students. It's a wonderful chance for students to see music up close, and it's supported by NEA funds.
Full text of Ms. Bea's comments can be found at the American Symphony Orchestra League, http://www.symphony.org/about/pdf/karen_bea.pdf.
Keep an eye out, more coverage of One Nation is in the air!
Marketing & Public Relations Manager
A quick note, bloggers, to those who are avid fans of CSPAN. (We know you are out there!) If you were watching you might have seen The Phoenix Symphony's violist and board member, Karen Bea, testifying to Congress on Thursday, April 19. The subject: restored funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
At the heart of her program was one of the Symphony's educational programs, the One Nation collaboration with the Salt River-Pima Indian community. Musicians from the orchestra give performances and lessons at the school during the year, and culmiate the activites with a side-by-side concert with orchestra members and students. It's a wonderful chance for students to see music up close, and it's supported by NEA funds.
Full text of Ms. Bea's comments can be found at the American Symphony Orchestra League, http://www.symphony.org/about/pdf/karen_bea.pdf.
Keep an eye out, more coverage of One Nation is in the air!
19 Comments:
To all those “Anonymous” bloggers who week-after-week blast Maestro Christie for his failure to program the music you really want to hear, this should be interesting: The American Symphony Orchestra League (ASOL) publishes the Top 20 most frequently performed works by its 322 member orchestras (last reported 2005-2006).
#20 Beethoven 6th, #19 Grieg Piano Concerto, #18 Beethoven Violin Concerto, #17 Dvorak 8th, #16 Brahms 2nd, #15 Mahler 1st, #14 Rachmoninoff 2nd Concerto, #13 Sibelius Violin Concerto, #12 Handel Messiah, #11 Mozart 40th, #10 Mussorgsky Pictures, #9 Joan Towers “Made in America” #8 Tchaikovsky 4th, #7 Beethoven 5th, #6 Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, #5 Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto, #4 Beethoven 9th, #3 Tchaikovsky 5th, #2 Mozart 41st, and #1 Beethoven 7th.
As you can see, Maestro Christie has already covered all of these audience favorites during his brief tenure. So, shall we have him start recycling the same list? I’m sure tired of this list, aren’t you?
The only piece that was sadly missed by the Phoenix Symphony was the living American woman composer Joan Towers’ “Made in America.” This was a special project by the ASOL that received more than 80 performances within a twenty-month period since its world premiere in Glens Falls, NY in October 2005, and will have been heard by more than 35,000 audience members across the nation. It was probably a lack of initiative or an oversight by Maestro Christie’s predecessors. In Arizona, only the Tucson Civic Orchestra played it.
In January 2007 the League and Meet the Composer announced the selection of Joseph Schwantner as the second composer in the Ford Made in America program. Mr. Schwantner’s new work will receive its world premiere with the Reno Chamber Orchestra in the autumn of 2008, and the work will then be performed in communities throughout the nation. Hopefully, our Phoenix Symphony will join in this next round by contacting Michael Lawrence, director, artistic programs, at mlawrence@symphony.org.
I "blast" Michael Christie because I find him to be a poor conductor, a poor musical director, who is egotistical as proven by his need to stand before the audience prior to each concert. Feels like I am back in college taking Music Appreciation 101 again. Give the audience some credit and don't assume that everyone is a neophyte. Maybe some of us don't want to be bombarded with the trivia shelled at the audience. The same is true for the notes the audience receives to follow along with. I feel like I am to follow the bouncing ball of old movie musicals. Time for the music director and the symphony to concentrate less on gimicks and more on filling the seats. So far the music programmed by this music director has done more to chase people away, I for one, won't be renewing my season subscription.
For crying out loud, can the marketing dept. at TPS consider running a typical message board where anyone can initiate a topic? Please think about this much forgotten target audience: those of us who have the means to support the symphony and won’t be cashing Social Security checks anytime soon.
Scrolling through a sea of rambling comments, mostly posted by Sonny the Cat and a few other disgruntled blowhards, is both excruciating and wearisome. It would be much easier to click and reply to comments assorted by topic, and not prompted by marketing. Just go to any message board to see what we are talking about. This way if someone wants to have a lengthy discussion on a particularly random incident or factoid, they can still have their platform. The rest of us, however, can skip those subjects and review/post other comments according to our interests. Maybe even some light-hearted topics (gasp!) from time to time could appeal to a younger following. Topics such as what MC’s plans are for the summer, why is the symphony hall splattered in 80s orange, how much does it cost to maintain an instrument, how do younger musicians feel about their chosen profession, etc. This post may appear a little vacuous but what’s the sense in offering an online feature that accommodates only one person? Okay, maybe three people (not including anyone employed by TPS)….
I wish her luck in DC. I would imagine it is harder than ever to convince our government that art and music is important.
Here’s another fact for you Anti-Rouse Bloggers. You may recall that CHRISTOPHER ROUSE was not the original choice of Maestro Christie to be the first featured living composer of 2006-2007.
It was TAN DUN. He was replaced only after it became obvious that he would be too busy preparing for the world premiere of his opera, “The First Emperor” with the Met. I had no clue who ROUSE was at the beginning of the season. It was only after I bought every orchestral CD recording available and prepared for his Second Symphony that I began to like his style.
What would have happened if TAN DUN had been the Featured Composer this season?
Surely, Maestro Christie would have first emphasized that he is most widely known as the composer of the Grammy and Oscar-award winning scores for the movies Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero… Phoenix Symphony Hall would have resounded with these soundtracks with projected film excerpts.
… I can hear the totally-negative-under-any-circumstances bloggers criticizing how the Maestro had stooped so low as to offer such Pops music in the Classics series!
TAN DUN, as has Christopher Rouse, worked closely with super-star Yo-Yo Ma. For the official ceremony for the transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong on July 1, 1997, he was commissioned to write Symphony 1997: Heaven Earth Mankind, for cello soloist (who was Yo-Yo Ma at the first performances), the recently unearthed ancient bianzhong bells, children's choir and orchestra.
Yo-Yo Ma could have played this new work this year in Phoenix instead of another routine stroll through Dvorak’s Cello Concerto, which he played the last time he was here. [BTW, why isn’t he doing the Rouse Concerto that he commissioned?]
… But then again, I can hear the totally-negative-under-any-circumstances bloggers crying out for the same old Dvorak and Rococo Variations!
"Tea: A Mirror of Soul," with a libretto by Tan Dun and Xu Ying, was commissioned by Suntory Hall in Tokyo, Japan and was given its world premiere performance there by the NHK Symphony on October 22, 2002. The opera will receive its US premiere during the 2007 summer season of the Santa Fe Opera.
This significant work could have received its U.S. Premiere right here in Phoenix in 2006-2007. That would have put us on the map.
… But, no! The totally-negative-under-any-circumstances bloggers would have none of that. Instead, they’ll be exclaiming: “WE WANT TO COMMISSION AN AMERICAN OPERA BY ROUSE!” [Ha, ha, meow, scratch!]
I agree with Statler and Waldorf, who suggested turning this blog into a message board. It's very difficult to initiate and follow conversations when only the administrator/moderator can start new topics. That might also cut down on the number of times that threads wander away from the original topic, as this one has done.
In response to Sonny the Cat's comments about "Anonymous bloggers who week-after-week blast Maestro Christie," please note that we have as much right to voice our disapproval as you have to voice your generally positive opinions. We probably all realize that we're stuck with Christie for the time being, but we are not required to be happy about that fact. And, as some posters have noted, disapproval is not going to help keep the subscription renewal rate up.
Yeah, people need to lay off of MC. It seems that when MC shares his genuine enthusiasm for music with the general public it gets misconstrued as being egotistical. Is it too much for some individuals to simply sit through a five minute discussion, especially when it might be a first experience for someone in the audience? Since when has music become so exclusionary? Keep in mind that Phoenix is a relatively young city (if you want to call it a city). And, not everyone has had the benefit of being exposed to the symphonies of major metropolitan areas. (Aha, light bulb). For some people, pitching a tent at Country Thunder is considered a major musical event. Is MC a little egotistical…maybe. At his age, we would be too. Give the guy and everyone in the symphony a break and support the arts.
Thank you "statler and waldorf" and "oboemom" for coming out boldly with your own identity. Don't all the generic "anomymous" bloggers realize that nobody can keep track of who is who in order to carry on a meaningful discussion about anything?
Then again, perhaps that is the "anonymous" goal? To simply antagonize without making a point? To give the illusiuon of strength in numbers (a hundred anonymous entries) when all of them could be by one very repetitious and usurping writer? For all we know, it could be the Maestro playing his own Devil's Advocate...
Yes, I agree that this pretty little SoundPost sytem needs to be retooled to make it a more free-flowing universe. Why should we, the paying customers, work so hard just to be the Symphony Public Relations Department's weapons of mass-discontentment!?
Statler and Waldorf --
Megadittos on your last comment. You said it perfectly.
Don't be hard on Sonny, who has a lot to teach if we listen, but in general, I agree with your earlier comment as well. Not only would just some positive opportunities to learn more about different things be in order (loved it when Maestro Christie had time occasionally to write -- too bad he probably does not bother any more, because he was a magnet for the tiresome "bash Mike brigade"), but being new to Phoenix, I guess I just don't see how terrible things are with the Symphony. It seems pretty good to me! I'm a comparatively young -- one of the under-40 crowd symphonies want to attract -- a regular attendee, and very pleased with what I'm experiencing.
Moreover, if he's wrong -- and he could be -- then practically every other symphony in the country is wrong. Many of the things people on this board complain about are standard parts of other symphonies' arsenals. Example: I attend tons of different symphonies' performances, and I didn't know any conductors weren't giving brief lectures prior to performances or giving little intros to individual pieces, and everyone who travels down south to hear George Hanson's fine group will hear very similar short speeches about virtually the same programs (half of the guests are the same from year to year!).
Bottom line: I'm a net one in the audience, and I like it. Anyone can say what they want, but the "bash Mike" topic is a little worn. It is a little bizarre that people who claim not to like him or what he does feel the need to spend so much time on his organization's board talking about it. Maybe most who leave them do not know, but the comments don't sound justified; they just sound unreasoned and rude. Luckily we do have folks like Sonny, who backs up what he says with intriguing facts. Now, maybe the symphony will consider Statler and Waldorf's advice, or at least a variant. Then those of us who love the music and want to share those feelings with others could take this board back.
The old saying is true: you can't please all of the people all of the time. I've found Maestro Christie's programs to be well-balanced and enjoyable. I don't like every single piece on every single program, but it's not reasonable for me to expect that the orchestra will perform only my favorites. With centuries worth of music to choose from, and more being composed every day, there are bound to be a few pieces in the mix that I don't like. Such is life. I'm looking forward to hearing Rouse's Rapture for the first time tomorrow night. Perhaps I will enjoy it, perhaps not. Even if I hate it, it's hardly the end of the world. There's something for almost everyone on the program, and that's exactly the way it should be.
I know that some audience members cringe when they see a new work on the program. I'm just the opposite; I upgraded to a full Classics 16 subscription several years ago when the orchestra put on a Beethoven festival. But I didn't buy the whole season for the Beethoven. I wanted to hear the nine new works that were being performed along with the nine Beethoven symphonies.
It wouldn't be fair for me to demand that all programs contain nothing but new music and it's equally unfair for others to demand that the orchestra perform only well-known 18th- and 19th-century masterpieces.
Two summers ago I attended a perfomance of the San Francisco Symphony. The two works on the program, one a world premiere of a timpani concerto, and Beethoven's 9th symphony. Mr. Tilson-Thomas did not find it neccesary to lecture the audience on either piece of music. Also when ever I watch a PBS broadcast of the NY Philharonic I have never seen the conductor lecture the audience, when I listent to the same Philharmonic performances streamed via the computer I also do not hear the conductor or guest conductor lecture the audience prior to a performance. So the assertion that it is happening everyone, is a false assertion. In reviews of the Brooklyn Philharmonic there is also no mention of the Conductor (Michael Christie) lecturing the audience.
Oh, boo-hoo…some people want the same format all the time. Can you imagine what our world would be like if everyone had the same “but we never did it this way before, so let’s not do it” attitude?
On a different note (no pun intended), “way to go” everyone on last night’s performance. We’re still a little perplexed over the Rouse “assault” music, but overall it remained an enjoyable night. Enjoy kids! Statler and Waldorf are leaving the box for now.
Anyone who thinks it is a "false assertion" that conductors other than Michael Christie speak from the podium just is not getting around to other regional symphonies much. I'm not being obnoxious here, but there are a lot of orchestras out there, and increasingly, those forms of audience rapport are considered de rigueur.
I would not rely on a New York Philharmonic television broadcast for what mainstream regional orchestras other than the big five do on a concert-to-concert basis. For one thing, no one really knows what happened during that performance due to editing. Further, I would not expect a special broadcast to be the norm.
What the New York Phil does is hardly relevant to Phoenix, however, and it isn't a group we should emulate. In fact, they should consider adopting the new trends regional orchestras have used to rebound successfully from the early part of the 2000 crash. When we speak of the New York Phil, we are talking about an institution that had a $100 million endowment as of 1991, and surely that has exploded if they haven't used it to cover deficits over the past two decades. These are incredible riches. Yet while the Phil pulled itself together for a while, again, it's was a financial basket case with budget shortfalls and declining ticket sales yet again in the mid-200s. Now, I hear things have looked up more recently, but the point remains the same: things were a disaster in the early 1990s; they were a disaster in the mid-2000s; they were probably a disaster other times; and they will be a disaster again. But for that endowment, the Phil would not have a fraction of its current glory and no one would be citing it as an example to emulate.
We should be asking ourselves a different question: why is the Phil a financial disaster? In the mid-1990s, it snagged a spiffy executive director, and things did look up. What did she do to turn things around? She innovated. OK, maybe her conductors did not do the cheap thing and speak from the podium. But she brought in all sorts of imaginative guests, instituted a rush-hour concert series, and offered post-concert cocktail hours with the players and conductor. Oh, in a prior management stint in St. Paul, John Adams was one of her conductors. During the mid-1990s, however, the Phil made money.
Normally, however, the Phil struggles financially, staying afloat by dipping into that huge endowment for this reason: the Phil has a reputation for being a bore, plain and simple. I'm sure it's very grave when you go there, just as the Chicago Symphony is, and that's an experience people should have. I get a huge kick out of going to Chicago and seeing "names." I'm not criticizing it. It's one way of thinking about how classical music should be presented. But it's not the only one, and it probably isn't the future. Try this one instead, that a young, world-class artist suggested to me when I asked him what he thought the future should be (paraphrasing a bit here): "An long evening of Schubert, probably in open air, with breaks for great food and great wine, all for a reasonable price." OK, I'm not sure the latter is possible taking the rest into account, but that sort of informality is a different way. Bach and Mozart performed in coffee bars, and I'm sure they spoke to their audiences. There's more than one way to do this.
That isn't San Francisco's story, of course, and I take your point. If we are going to read "100 percent" into my comment, then you win the argument, except that it wasn't there. Having said that, there's a real problem with holding anything MTT does up as an implicit criticism of Michael Christie: taking into account age, experience and the markets where they work, the two are surprisingly similar in their approaches to symphony management. Bluntly, if you like Michael Tilson-Thomas, it's inconsistent not to like Michael Christie.
Let's be candid. We all know that when we discuss "speaking from the podium," that's partly literal and partly symbolic. Let's deal with the literal first. Some of the conductors I've heard recently include Bernard Labadie guesting in St. Louis; George Hanson in Tucson; Edvard Tchivzhel in Fort Wayne; Robert Bernhardt in Chattanooga; Nicholas Palmer in Owensboro; Ron Spigelman in Springfield, Mo; and Carlos Miguel Prieto guesting here. I have not seen him conduct, only teach, but if Jose Feghali doesn't speak from the podium, it would be the only time he doesn't talk. I nipped in late in Flagstaff, so I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure all the others said something from the podium, but at least the majority did, and some made extensive remarks. To be fair, Pinchas Zukermann and Christopher Seaman guesting here did not, but I would note that they are a full generation older than Hanson, Palmer, Spigelman, Prieto and of course, much more so than Michael Christie. If we expand the set of musical events we are considering, I can testify that many recital series presenters introduce the guest with considerable detail, including the curators for the Virginia Piper Piano Series in Scottsdale. Joyce Yang, who will perform with the Phoenix Symphony next season speaks between pieces in her recitals, some of those remarks going on for many minutes. In fact, career counselors urge pianists if they know the language; it's a way of connecting with the audience and drawing them in, hopefully producing a positive response that converts to a reinvitation. I do not see that as often, but that's why it's recommended: pianists are notoriously insular, and it gives those who do it a career boost. The position that speaking educationally from the podium is rare, especially in regional orchestras, does not stand up to scrutiny. Now, no one has to like it, but Michael Christie does not have three heads because he does it. It's very normal.
Bottom line: MTT doesn't speak from the podium? So what -- if all one is arguing is that some symphony conductors don't speak from the podium, then: (1) what makes him so special; and (2) so many other conductors do, that the basic point that speaking from the podium is very standard has been made.
Now, I think speaking from the podium is really just a symbol of what some don't like about Maestro Christie, which is innovation, education, and his becoming the marketing face of the symphony. Now, he does not make all those decisions. Second, education of all types is as effective a fund-raising strategy as exists. In any event, the first two go together, because emphasis on the education of the people in the hall is apparently itself an innovation in Phoenix. Then, his being the marketing "face," when combined with speaking from the podium or offering new ideas looks like he's putting himself forward in a way apparently no one is used to. All of that raises a scary concept, change, which does rub some people the wrong way. On the other hand, while missing what you loved in the past is totally understandable, excoriating the guy someone else hired him to make certain changes is sort of silly when you think about it. Michael Christie isn't even the right target; the symphony board or hiring committee or whoever made the final call is who you should string up! After attending events where he's spoken, listening to him in the intermission guest artist interviews, and observing him before and during concerts, I just don't discern even a droplet of egotism in the man. Is he a good conductor? Hell if I know -- you'd need a better musician than I to tell that, but unfortunately, the one group that probably isn't the best to give us an assessment is the membership of the symphony itself, because they too have views hard to separate from their feelings, positive or negative, about change. Doesn't make those views wrong; it just means we can't know which are wrong and which aren't. I also might change my view someday if I learned or saw something new. Nothing is set in stone.
BUT . . .
It could not be more inconsistent than to hold up Michael Tilson-Thomas as an example of someone different in essentials from Michael Christie. MTT is one of the greatest symphony innovators of modern times. His reputation is huge as a communicator, an educator. He has huge charisma. He has gotten the orchestra into all kinds of broadcasting and recording. You wouldn't know the orchestra has anyone else in it other than him the way his face is plastered all over everything. The orchestra recorded with Metallica of all horrors on his watch; it hit near the top of the rock instrumental charts. At considerable financial risk -- but when you have overflowing coffers such things are possible -- they offered a summer festival of modern American composers that probably make Christopher Rouse and John Adams sound quaintly lyrical and one of the express goals for this event was to attract new audiences (maybe we'd keep those composers out of the main season if we could afford summer festivals, too). He started a chamber music series. He's tried to instill new attitudes among the musicians (though when you make $1.7 million a year and your top folks are making $2,000 a week, I wonder how well that works, though the argument that he keeps the money flowing in is not meritless). He's also created a multi-media program for kids called, you guessed it, "Keeping Score."
It seems to me that the only thing MTT hasn't done that is comparable to Michael Christie's innovation program is to talk from the podium. Sure, MTT can do everything on a grander scale because he's got the money, but between the two it's a difference in degree, not in kind.
One other point is worth considering. What is it about classical music fans that we think we are better served when conductors and musicians give us less service than they could? Again, I accept that what those services should be is a debateable point. But MTT earns $1.7 for 19 weeks a year in San Francisco. And he won't deign to chat with the audience about what strikes him in the piece? It's bizarre; he's a human being, not a god. Exactly this problem is why one of the finest orchestras in this country, the St. Louis Symphony, went into meltdown. I'm not overjoyed that right now classical musicians get equivalent respect to folksingers who play in smoky backstreet bars and have to eek out a little extra income selling CDs one by one over the internet, but one nice aspect of the buyer's market is that musicians are approachable because they have to be. Literally, we can have lunch with Michael Christie, who actually is one of the finest conductors in the world, and talk at an incredibly high level of insight and discernment. You cannot do that with lawyers, doctors, businesspeople, actors, etc., of equivalent skills. My students always want to be let out of class early, too, and I never get it. They paid good money to hear me jabber, and even if I'm not at my best, they may as well soak up what they can. But I guess classical music is just another case of where people will pay more for education to get less. Not me. The Phoenix Symphony is going to charge me $63 no matter whether Michael Christie talks before the concert or interviews the guest during the intermission or not. You've got to be kidding me that I'm not going to take advantage of that!
To the unidentifiable "anonymous" Anti-Christie:
You must not have been around the globe too long. Has it ever occurred to you that the PBS broadcasts of the NY Philharmonic are carefully formatted to fit the allotted timeframe? Oh, by the way, don't they interview the conductor and soloists at length? If I don't care to watch that part, I take a bathroom break, get a beverage, or switch channels. Don't you?
Have you not seen or heard of MTT's long-winded lectures and demonstrations on PBS? He goes out of his way to educate the lowest common denominator amongst the potential audiences. I guess it's the "in" thing to do and we the advanced listeners just have to grin and bear it.
Have you been to a concert LIVE at Avery Fisher Hall? I was fortunate to have grown up in Metropolis. I had to sit through a 10-minute lecture and excerpts played by the orchestra because conductor Leonard Slatkin wanted to show us sitting ducks, the presumably sophisticated New Yorkers, which 8 measures at the beginning of Schumann's Rhenish Symphony was modified by Gustav Mahler to make it sound better. Hey, I couldn't tell the difference. Nor did I care. I just wanted to hear Philip Myers play his brilliant horn solos!
Who's the greatest American conductor of all time? Leonard Bernstein, of course. Let me tell you, it wasn't only during the Young Person's Concerts that he talked to the audience. When he felt strongly about a piece, nobody could hold him back. The packed house and full orchestra on stage, already tuned, had to be subjected to a 15-minute subjective speech about why he was conducting Shostakovich's 14th Symphony instead of the 13th and 15th, which he didn't feel were worthwhile pieces of music! One violinist walked off the stage (in protest?).
Aren't you glad that Maestro Christie has more sense than that?
sonny,
The Joan Tower piece was written for amateur or semi pro orchestras.
Jennifer,
I think it is fair to say that in the NYC market the Phil does a good job. They have competition in their own house doing non standard rep. The American Symphnony plays all the under represented stuff and the American Composers Orch plays all the new stuff. It always struck me as strange, especially when the New York critics went after the Phil for the same reasons as you. Those other orchestras I mentioned sell their concerts very well. They are set up to their very specific tasks. The NY Phil could not compete. Also the Philharmonic has to compete with all the touring orchestras from around the country and the world. Those tend to bring big works with them. Whatever you think of the Philharmonic's playing you have to admit it is a group of great players in a unique city.
Sonny -- I basically concede your point. Even as I was writing I thought, "I could easily argue this the other way," which leads to the thought, maybe I shouldn't take a strong stand at all. In some ways, what I said is evidence in itself of the problems of making the kinds of judgments I was railing against. Upon reflection, I would not want to be found arguing that the New York Phil is a bad institution; any institution that survives as long as it has is impressive, and though it has a very sleezy side to its history, that tended to improve the musical side on balance (perhaps at the cost of other institutions, but again, that doesn't get to the point of what the Phil was). More recently, it has also clearly had its ups and downs, as any group that is sometimes not well run, but also as any group that tries to do interesting and new things will have. The key is to distinguish between them, and that is a devilishly tricky business.
My bottom line is this: I just think it's unfair to create an aura around the Phil so that we jump to the conclusion that when the Phil does something, that something falls into the "good" category, but when Maestro Christie does something, it falls into the "bad" category. To the extent I get misconstrued, that probably has to do with how I write about it, which is very influenced by being a lawyer. We frequently find ourselves in a situation where we say, "what's the worst or best interpretation of these facts and if we take that interpretation as true, what does the law tell us." Basically, there is a "worst side" of the Phil, and when you tell it, you feel like holding your nose. The best side is really quite wonderful. The truth? I leave that to the jury (laugh!). I just know from that kind of analysis that the "well, the Phil does it so that must make it right," argument lacks merit unless there are other reasons for why we should look to the Phil as our standard that are more powerful than the reasons on the other side. But again, to come off too condemnatory of the Phil is the equivalent of taking a three-dimensional debate about how orchestras should be run and what good music presentation is and cramming that into a one-dimensional space. Even worse, I didn't present all the facts -- there are way too many, of course -- as you rightly point out. Any definitive answer, which I suspect we could not get, requires much more analysis than I did in my post.
I wanted to report first of all that shortly after Karen Bea testified before a congressional committee that a significant increase in NEA funding was proposed. Let's see what W thinks about it in the end.
There are many interesting points made on this posting of the blog. I do take a considerable interest in the offerings of other orchestras around the world. Naturally, I'm looking for an illuminating combination of works or a commissioned piece that should be played again. Apart from that however I'm looking at how these institutions are evolving. All of them, New York, Chicago, San Fran, Santa Fe to name a scant few are evolving. New York's programming is heavily reliant on the top 40 rep but that organization has decided it's what will keep that part of New York's society buying tickets and giving money. Chicago is similar in some respects but look at their "Beyond the Score" program. People are buying tickets. The other thing about many of these banner institutions is that they run their venues. The orchestra component of the Chicago Symphony can afford to present symphonic fare because the presenting side of the CSO gives Chicagoans jazz, world music etc. We have limited access to Symphony Hall and during those weeks we have to jam in what we can to reach the most diverse audience possible.
Speaking from the podium. I know it drives some people crazy. In order to minimize the pain I've chosen to structure "audience development" in the following way.
1) Thursday night is chat free during the performance. We have had a lot of people ask that Intermission Insights remain and we are continuing to do that. We save all of the intro commentary for our other performances.
2) On the whole the orchestra is not on stage during the speaking. Having the orchestra offstage lends focus to the speaker and makes the entrance of the orchestra the official opening of the orchestral performance. This is also why I tend to limit my comments to the opening of the evening. Sometimes when a large stage change needs to happen the conductor may use that time to interact with the audience. This happens more often than not on Friday mornings.
3) I try to make my comments tidy with as few stumbles as possible so that the presentation of those thoughts is as polished as the performance that will follow.
4) Building an aware audience is a priority to me. I don't expect every audience member to know the inner workings of every piece we play. I do feel strongly that given the tools some members of the audience will develop a more sophisticated approach to experiencing all types of music. The Keeping Score sheets are a tool to guide a listener through a piece. We don't have them on Thursday in order to preserve a more traditional presentation format.
I don't think many orchestras give patrons the opportunity to experience the same program in so many different ways. Jennifer is right when she points out that we don't need to do any of this. For the same money we could do all of it or none of it. Producing Keeping Score, a "script" of sorts for comments, Intermission Insights or an overall programming concept are strictly at the expense of my personal time. I'm committed to all of it though because I know it enhances the experience for many people. Maybe we should get the word out more about the concert formats concept so those who want it their way can have it.
It's a very interesting experience to be publicly liked or disliked. I didn't go into music to have either on such a scale. I also had no aspiration to have this much responsibility at this age. The fact is though that this is my fourth Music Director post (three are running concurrently) and each of the institutions I've lead has needed some sort of turn around. Some of the successful things that happened in one situation can be used in another. In some cases the local needs go beyond what another has required which is why one can't generically say we should do it exactly like xyz orchestra.
I view the entire state of Arizona as a wild card. There is a rugged individualism struggling against the need to coalesce into some sort of society. Maybe the shortage of water or some other unavoidable challenge will bring people together? Add a healthy dose of life experience from the transplanted people that had formative experiences in established cities. What we get is a citizenry that knows that some aspects of life can be better but doesn't have the inertia to make it so.
That same glass ceiling impacts lots of things in Arizona. Heck, we are the second to last state in education funding. The arts struggle against this every day. No substantive endowments, a general lack of curiosity about our region culturally and an apathy about change on any level. We aren't the only ones though. If any of our sports teams has a down year it's rough for them to sell the number of tickets they need to.
The opportunity for greatness is within our reach but we are burning a tremendous amount of human capital to stay at the current level and slowly exhibit marginal growth.
Michael Crowe at ASU has decided that the University will evolve into a powerhouse. Will he get there? Time will tell.
Am I the right person to do the same at the Phoenix Symphony? Time will tell.
As for being arrogant, I can only say that my upbringing in Buffalo, NY couldn't have been more lacking for pretense. I am deeply embarrassed if anything I do comes across as arrogant. I hope as we get to know each other better that the confidence one has to project as the leader of an organization like this comes across more as confidence and less as arrogance. You don't have to be afraid to say specifically what situation it was that gave such an impression. I am very happy to learn from that.
By the way, we hope to have the website retooled for easier use in the Fall. We know the blog hasn't been the easiest thing to keep track of so we are trying to find a format that will work better. Thanks for contributing to it, however.
Post a Comment
<< Home