What To Do About Music Directors?

I recently had a post about this fascinating interview with Anthony Woodcock, in which he discusses - among many other things - the relationship between an orchestra an its music director.  That only touched the surface of the topic, and this article in the Washington Post has made me think further along those lines.  I'm probably also thinking about these things since so many groups and companies are starting their new seasons around now, some with new music directors, and some without.

The article talks about some of the things a music director does, including programming and hiring.  This does remind me of a few things we all tend to forget since the music director discussion so often tends to focus on big names and money.  For example, the National Symphony Orchestra isn't going to fill their eight vacancies for possibly another two years, until they hire a new music director.  This isn't really a big deal, as it's not like the seats are empty for concerts.  But it does hinder the orchestra's stability, and may hamper growth somewhat.

Many orchestras have artistic directors who do the bulk of the programming, but that's not the same influence a music director/conductor has.  The artistic director behind the scenes will mostly make the decisions about which soloists to bring in, negotiate repertoire with guest conductors, come up with theme concerts, things like that.  The music director as chief conductor generally has influence over the programs they themselves lead in performance.  Although I'm oversimplifying things a bit, there is something more personal when it comes to the music director's own concerts.

But there's so much more to it than just programming.  In the US, music directors are often expected to make fundraising appearances and press the flesh.  In some places that can almost become a job unto itself.  Often, he or she will be, for better or worse, the "face" of the orchestra.  That comes with the territory, especially if they're expected to stay around for a while.  Opera companies put their star singers on the posters instead, although in many places the core audience will have just as strong feelings about their music directors as do their concert orchestra counterparts.

One major effect a music director can have on the orchestra is in the performance standard.  There are plenty of examples of new chief conductors coming in and instilling much-needed discipline (Kurt Masur and New York come to mind), or strenghtening an orchestra and taking it to that next level (like Esa-Pekka Salonen in LA, or Michael Tilson-Thomas in San Francisco).  Conversely, standards may slip when the big boss isn't around enough, or turns out to be really irritating or negative in rehearsal.  There are just as many stories of music directors destroying morale and failing to keep the orchestra in top form.  Rehearsal is a big part of that.  Poor preparation - a killer - and bad manners will eventually defeat talent and star power, no matter how big the name is.  That's something the public generally doesn't get to hear about very often, if ever.  All they may know is that the group seems uninspired lately.  And the tendency is usually to take it out on the musicians.  Often, the audience tends to blame rough spots on the players only, when sometimes it's a bad or missed cue, or sloppiness from the podium.  Music critics often aren't much better at that.  Maybe if some of them went to more rehearsals they'd occasionaly find a new perspective on a given performance.

If the players feel like they're not getting the opportunity to do their best, it's all over.  Even if they're pros who bring it every night, some things just don't happen without the right attitude on the podium.  Not every orchestra can do an LSO and basically tell the conductor, "Okay, we'll start the piece when you do, but that's the last time we're going to pay attention, and it's up to you if you want to stop waving your arms about when we're finished."  Although, some orchestras do that anyway even when they shouldn't....

Aside from having high performance standards and a good working environment, there are other benefits for everyone when the relationship works well.  For instance, I just noticed this post by Kenneth Woods about a bit of programming he's doing for his upcoming season with the Surrey Mozart Players.  He's programming a much neglected piece he has always wanted to hear live, and is well aware of the pitfalls of trying to do such a thing.  This kind of enthusiasm and dedication to the art is great for the orchestra and the audience, as well as being a personal moment of musical satisfaction for the music director.  That kind of thing won't happen very often in other business arrangements.  James Levine gets to do lots of his beloved Elliott Carter and other contemporary music because it's his show.  Similarly, Salonen can keep doing works by his old schoolmate Magnus Lindberg with LA.  The same goes for Leon Botstein and the American Symphony Orchestra, or, as the above article metions, the NSO can now add more contemporary works from other countries after Leonard Slatkin's departure. 

In some cases, the job is done by the players themselves.  The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra has never had a conductor/music director, and the Britten Sinfonia seems to be doing just fine that way as well.  Different situations call for different measures, and I don't think this arrangement would work for some of the big boys, just because of the way the whole organization is structured.  But that's another argument altogether.

There's just so much more to the music director/chief conductor deal than what we see on posters and in concert programs.  Sometimes I'm amazed that anybody gets anything done well.

Comments

[generic viagra]

so i gotta competition.I want some websites from where i can get names of music directors,producers n directors of films also.cani get it from sumwhere-i want the info 2 be 2gether