Through These Ears

Increasing Diversity Among Classical Musicians: Get 'Em While They're Young, And Then Support Them

Sphinx looks to change makeup of U.S. orchestras

Gifted young black and Latino musicians are identified through a national instrumental competition that doles out more than $100,000 in prizes and scholarships annually to music schools and opportunities to perform with top American orchestras. The Detroit-based national advocacy group, founded in 1996, also oversees an expanding range of education programs, re-introducing classical music to school curricula in New York, Miami, Atlanta and other cities.

The organization's touring ensemble, the Sphinx Chamber Orchestra, will make its Chicago debut Saturday night at the Harris Theater in Millennium Park, in collaboration with the theater and the Chicago Sinfonietta, another orchestra long dedicated to diversity. The 25-member chamber orchestra is made up of past winners of the national Sphinx Competition for emerging African-American and Latino musicians.

Good.  Start them at it while they're young, then support them on the way up.  Does it ever work any other way?  Hopefully this will break down cultural barriers going both ways.

A Little More About Daniele Gatti

Further to my post below about Gatti's debut concert as Musical Director of the Orchestre national de France:  I just picked up the September issue of Le Monde de la musique.  This is the first time I've seen this magazine.  I'm quite impressed by it so far, and I'm not even half way through.

There's a brief interview with Daniele Gatti, where he talks a bit about how his learning to love music through his parents, and how he chose to become a conductor.  Apparently he likes to build model ships as well.  He's got a five-year deal with the ONF, and has an interesting programming idea.  Gatti would like to do a Beethoven cycle over five concerts, but with a brand new work, commissioned by the orchestra, sandwiched in between two symphonies on each program.  Sounds pretty cool to me, although I'd hate to be the composer surrounded by all that Beethoven.  Gatti also complements his predecessor, Kurt Masur, for helping to restore the orchestra's luster.  Sounds a little like what they said about Masur's contribution in New York.

In any case, he also made an interesting comment about why he sought the new gig. Gatti has been the principal conductor of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra in London since 1996, and has been doing the lion's share of conducting for at least the last six years.  According to the interview, taking the job with the ONF was not a difficult choice:

"After thirteen years in London, I felt the need to work with an orchestra where the musicians aren't constantly changing, to build a season over the long term, to think about thematic programs.  In London, this isn't possible:  one had to sell each program and the competitions with the other groups is tough."

The above is my translation from the original.  In that last line about competition, Gatti says he had to compete with the other "formations", and uses the French word "rude" to describe it.  I chose to translate it here as "tough", but it can also mean "harsh" in this context.  Interesting, indeed.

In an interview in The Guardian a few years ago, Bernard Haitink had this to say about the London scene:

"That's really a difficult situation," he reflects, "because London has a pool of musicians that is unique. Boulez says you can do what you want in London, because for every piece there are always musicians who can play it. The tragedy is the way orchestras have to operate. Concert life just survives by the skin of its teeth. The whole life in London, I don't have to tell you, is so difficult. Nearly inhuman. Not much pay. Terrible pressure. Managers of orchestras need all the time to raise the money and can't concentrate on musical standards. The players are incredible. It's the survival of the fittest.

"It is tragic that London doesn't have a really good hall, and that it doesn't just have two well-established orchestras that don't have to fight for their lives. But I think it will never change, that's the sad thing. The political agenda is not interested. Nevertheless one can do extraordinary things."

That probably sums it up pretty well.  There are five big orchestras in London, and massive amounts of other ensembles.  Many of them share players from a larger pool of freelancers.  Something like 44% of all musicians' union members in the UK work in the London area.  The RPO has fixed membership, on paper anyway.  But there's always change going on under the surface.   And it's not just in London, either:  all of Britain runs that way.  For those not familiar with this kind of scenario, this "About Orchestras" page from the Association of British Orchestras website will be a bit of an eye opener.

Daniele Gatti is probably happy to leave all that.  Best of luck to him at the ONF.

Internet Radio Royalty Payments Not Settled Yet - Contrary To Reports

Today's news that the RIAA, DiMA, and the National Music Publishers Association (and other publishing groups) seem to have reached some sort of agreement on music over the internet is apparently not all it's cracked up to be.  Some good will come out of this, should the Copyright Royalties Board (CRB) approve the settlement these groups submitted to them, but, contrary to how this is being portrayed in some circles, it doesn't fix the problem with internet radio.

Here's a good explanation at the Broadcast Law Blog of what's really going on.

This agreement deals with limited-time downloads and interactive streaming.  The latter is becoming increasingly common, so it's good to get that out of the way finally, although since that's mostly about "on-demand" streaming, it doesn't cover anything else.  But how many people really do limited-time downloads?  I wonder if this move is intended to push that to the forefront a little more?  It's certainly a good marketing ploy if they can swing a useful price differential.

One thing this agreement does do, though, is allow people like me to record a stream without being chased down for royalties by the RIAA as if I were an illegal file-sharing college student.  I don't make copies of anything I record off the internet, I don't post it on the torrents, and I don't do anything else except listen to it again once in a while.  So I'm certainly happy about that.

Still, this does not deal with everyday internet radio, which is the real problem.  Live365 and Rhapsody are still in limbo, and this is the biggest obstacle right now for those who want to start new internet radio stations.  I suspect the CRB will want to get the biggest bang for the buck, and stick with the SoundExchange (an unincorporated division of the RIAA, naturally, and a near monopoly) deal they struck last year.  While this year's figure - $.0018 to stream one "performance" to one listener - doesn't look like much, this adds up in a hurry with lots of listeners, tuning in 24/7.  Unless we're talking about an internet radio station that operates for one hour a day, and they only tell their friends about it.

And let's not forget that this configuration is based on the pop music format, i.e. one "performance" = one song. Classical Music gets screwed in places like iTunes, because a four movement symphony counts as four different tracks.  Internet radio has the same problem.  In one sense, this is okay, because Classical works are generally longer than rock tunes, and should cost more.  That's fair enough for direct sales of a recording.  But radio stations can get killed if they handle it this way.

What will happen is just what this commenter on the Broadcast Law Blog said after last year's punt by the CRB:

Strategically, we'll withstand the increase by doubling the minimum length of each selection we play, creating less numbers of "performances", as well as aggressively seeking out marketing deals with labels housed outside the U.S. that are willing to provide airable product and waive U.S. performance rights fees on behalf of their orchestras in exchange for preferred treatment on our station and website.

Guess what this means?  Fewer US records being played, and fewer listeners for US labels, which usually means US artists and composers get shaft as well. And nobody should even bother making a recording of, say, Chopin Waltzes or Preludes, because nobody will play it if they have to pay a royalty for every single short work.

Here's the official press release, if it helps.  I believe the CRB has until Oct. 2 to make a ruling.  Let's hope cooler heads prevail.

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.

Stupidity In Cleveland - Music Critic Reassigned For Being Critical

Via Sounds & Fury, I just learned that the Cleveland Plain Dealer has reassigned Don Rosenberg, the music critic who has covered the Cleveland Orchestra for about thirty years.  It seems that he was too critical, too often, of music director Franz Welser-Mõst, and some people from the orchestra board complained enough that the paper is taking him off the beat.

How completely stupid.  I'll let others do the bit about how it's a critic's job to be critical, and instead say that this is just another sign of the problems going on with the orchestra.  I suppose this is related to the fact that in June, the orchestra extended Welser-Mõst's contract until 2018(!), while they have been having fundraising difficulties almost since he got there.  Rosenberg has been critical of his leadership, although always seemed to give praise when due.

They're having the same troubles other organizations are having holding onto donors, and it seems questionable that in the middle of this situation they would grant such an extension to the music director's contract.  There have been other difficulties at the orchestra in the last year as well, including personnel issues such as the resignation of the associate concert master due to a questionable restructuring of the section.  Things like that don't come from the board, so the true problem may be deeper.

Daniel Lews has been one of the biggest financial supporters of the orchestra.  He has also been involved in some behind-the-scenes machinations.  I don't know if he's involved in this move to protect Welser-Mõst, but it may not be a mere coincidence that he donated $10 million the year they hired their young European rising star (which is what they wanted).  Not only have they extended his contract to an absurd length, but recently eliminated the position of music director of the local Blossom Festival and gave it to the Music Director Nearly For Life.  Curious.  They apparently treat him very well in the office.

Rosenberg is not alone in his lack of total love for Welser-Mõst, or as he is known in some quarters as "Worse Than Most".  But the Vienna Staatsopera has him slated to take over from Ozawa in a couple of years, so he clearly does have quality support.  Of course, his repertoire there will be a little more limited than it is in Cleveland, and one of the main criticisms is that he just doesn't bring it in some works.

The Cleveland Orchestra has a rich history, always in the conversation about top orchestras in the US.  They're still an excellent group, but maybe not as inspired all the time as they might be.  I've certainly never been a big fan of Welser-Mõst, and from what I've read, Rosenberg seems to have his number.  Naturally, the people on the board who just signed him on for what seems like an eternity in music director years will want to hear as little criticism as possible.  This is far from the first time an orchestra has raised a fuss with a local paper about coverage, but in this day and age it's pretty ridiculous for a paper to cave in like this.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of thing that can alienate an orchestra from its community.  It's one thing for a music critic to get downsized, as people will begrudgingly accept that newspapers everywhere are struggling and doing this kind of thing.  It's quite another matter when the writer is merely taken off the beat because the orchestra doesn't like him.  It's important to remember that even if this is the result of noise from just a single faction of the board, it reflects back on the entire orchestra.  This must look awfully petty to orchestra supporters.

Not only that, but this amounts to the Cleveland Plain Dealer turning its back on readers.  In effect, this personnel decision is a statement that readers will no longer get a reliable report about an important cultural institution.

Stupid.

UPDATE:  Sam Bergman, violist and blogger for the Minnesota Orchestra, has made a comment below which (in his signature) links his post about this issue on his and Sarah Hicks's "Inside the Classics" blog, which has a little more information about how this may have happened.  Read his comment, and then go here to see what he's talking about.  A VP of the board is still a "faction", albeit a small one, and this was still handled in a very stupid fashion.  At least we agree that this reflects badly on the orchestra, which is the most important consideration.  I mean, regardless of the political machinations of the board and the paper, this affects the relationship between the community and the musicians as well.

Admittedly, I haven't spent much time thinking about how else this could have been handled.  If Rosenberg is just biased and couldn't be stopped after five or six years, why is he still writing for the paper?  If he was so clearly out of line, would his colleagues have elected him president of the Music Critics' Association of America?  Okay, maybe, but I kind of doubt it.  If the critic is acting unprofessionally, is reassigning him going to cure that?  Was this simply a case of a unique personal prejudice, which would never happen in another situation?  Maybe, but the problem is that Rosenberg is not exactly a lone voice in being underwhelmed by this conductor.  Since this is not the first time the paper heard these complaints, how has this been handled behind the scenes until now?  I guess we'll never know.

My thanks to Sam Bergman for the comment and the update.  I should have done this a while back, but the Inside the Classics blog has now been added to the Orchestra Blogs list on the left.

UPDATE:  Yes, I can spell Welser-Möst's name.  A typo is one thing, but there's no excuse for copying and pasting it to avoid having to do the alt-code for the "ö", and never noticing what I'd done.  My bad, fixed now.

Life Beyond Corporate Sponsorship

With the latest news of Lehman filing for Chapter 11 and Merrill Lynch apparently selling itself to Bank of America, the question uppermost in everyone's minds is surely, "What will happen to all that corporate sponsorship upon which orchestras and music organizations rely so heavily?"

Large corporations and foundations subsidize a huge chunk of the concerts we go to.  Yes, the big boys tend to have their own endowments and funds, but so many groups have concert series sponsored by corporations that one has to wonder how that's going to work in the future.  Sports stadiums have occasionally had to change their names when the original sponsor failed to live up to the agreement (for instance, Enron Field became Minute Maid Park), and a couple years back a few arts organizations had to scramble a bit when Alberto Vilar failed to meet his promises.  These things happen often enough, but this year is probably going to be worse than most.

Even in the ticket sales department, orchestras and opera companies will feel the pinch.  If some company goes south, there are probably ten others waiting to buy that skybox at their local football stadium.  That's probably not the case with the opera house or concert hall.  The same thing goes for sponsorship of concert series, and possibly even the money some group might need to bring in that one big name of their season.

Ticket sales account for barely 15% of the average orchestra's annual budget.  The rest is made up from fund-raising campaigns, grants from various government and arts organizations, and random individual gifts.  If they're very, very lucky, an orchestra can make a few pennies from merchandising and CD sales.

It's hard to tell whether this will affect major ensembles in big cities more than other groups.  If nothing else, this season will be a good indication of just how engaged communities are with their local orchestras, large or small.  Obviously everyone needs to find more revenue streams, but that's easier said than done.

Fortunately, technology now allows for a whole lot more of the concert experience to be made available outside of the concert hall.  I've spoken before about online broadcasting, and the potential there.  Peter Gelb's greatest contribution during his tenure at The Metropolitan Opera may very well turn out to be those live opera broadcasts in movie theaters.  That idea has already been taken up by the San Francisco Opera, and Glyndebourne did this last year as well.  For years now, groups like the London Symphony Orchestra and the San Francisco Symphony have been selling their own concert CDs.  Other orchestras such as The New York Philharmonic have arrangements with labels to release a few live recordings.  All these ideas can be adopted by an orchestra or opera company of just about any size, and, depending on how they do it, without a massive up-front cost.

These ideas can apply to any program a group wants to offer, even the non-Classical ones.  Kiddie concerts and holiday celebrations can be tapped for merchandising and souvenir recordings just as well as any serious concert.

Of course, all of this will require some seriously intelligent negotiation with the players and unions.  It's certainly in everyone's best interests to be smart and not greedy, with the long term firmly in focus.  I hope everyone on both sides of those discussions will keep these things in mind.

Alex Ross Asks: "Why So Serious?"

Alex Ross has a new article in The New Yorker discussing just how today's respectful, dead guys only, no-clapping between movements, serious Classical Music concert took form.

Ross uses a couple of new books as inspiration for his discussion: Kenneth Hamilton’s After the Golden Age: Romantic Pianism and Modern Performance and William Weber’s The Great Transformation of Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms.  Between the two, Ross puts together a reasonable, brief explanation of how we got to where we are today.

The point of all of this is that Ross feels that we need to re-open the discussion of what a Classical Music concert looks like, and how it connects to the audience.  That's a discussion we definitely need to have, and it's great that more people are starting to bring it up.

What I don't like is the use of the word "serious".  I think Ross to easily dismisses the respect the audience has for the composer.  If that respect had not been bestowed upon composers by the bourgeoisie (as he puts it), the opportunities for composers to reach the heights of success would have been greatly diminished.  Otherwise, things can become devalued to the point of no return.

I hope his ideas of "flexible" and the kinds of music he wants to include in more concerts are more like the examples he gives at the end of his article, rather than rock and all or other kinds of "brand-new" music.  Every time someone starts talking about opening up the format of the Classical Music concert, other genres inevitably start to join the stage.  That's something I don't think will help connect new audiences to Classical Music, unless it's done like this.

The Sun Provides Cheap Tickets To The Opera, But The BBC and The Guardian Don't Like It

Recently the British tabloid The Sun ran an offer of cheap opera tickets exclusively to their readers.  The scheme offered up to four tickets per reader to Don Giovanni at Covent Garden for prices ranging from £7.50 to £30 (about $15 - $60).  Now, most rational supporters of the arts would think this was a wonderful thing;  bring high art to those who could normally not afford it, or provide an incentive to those who might otherwise not make the effort.

Instead, both the BBC and The Guardian played petty politics and decided to insult the whole thing.

As happens everywhere, there's a rather ugly political and class rivalry between the two newspapers, and so of course the denizens of one will look down their noses at the other.  It's a shame, though, that this kind of thinking has to impose itself on enjoying music, to the point of wanting to punish Covent Garden by boycotting a performance made available to "their kind".  I just have no tolerance for that attitude.

Why would anyone call for a boycott of an opera simply because they're inviting people with whom one disagrees politically?  This attitude comes from the same people who supported the idea that the New York Philharmonic playing in North Korea would be a wonderful thing.  In that case, everyone was in favor of letting the music rise above politics.  But when it comes to their own fellow citizens, they insult them instead, and even suggest a boycott.  To me, that's just sad, and shows a complete lack of respect for the arts and the idea that high culture might possibly appeal to all people.

The BBC makes sure to demonstrate that the idea was a failure.  In both this article, and the accompanying video clip, the BBC shows us far more evidence against than in favor of the scheme.  They even go so far as to show a proud Guardian reader taking advantage of the cheap tickets.  The poor Sun readers we meet are mostly people who won't come back again for various reasons which have nothing to do with whether or not they enjoyed the show.

Oddly enough, the paper responsible for the scheme seemed to think it was rather successful.  Of course, they would say that.  And they have no way of knowing how many people who got the tickets were actually readers or just bought the one issue required to enter the lottery.  But that doesn't matter to me.

Why not just be happy that a nice, good musical experience is being made available to a few people who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity?  Why would anyone concerned about the arts let petty politics get in the way of such a thing?  The Guardian has often excellent coverage of the arts, especially Classical Music.  They ought to know better.

The thing is, this offer was subsidized by a grant from The Helen Hamlyn Trust.  This is just one of many foundations and organizations which provide arts funding in Britain, and there are many similar organizations in the US and around the world doing the same thing.  There was no political motive here, just an honest attempt to bring art to the people.

One of the negative responses in the BBC report was from a woman who complained that the cost of travel and a meal made it too expensive even with a cheap ticket.  We're supposed to accept that as evidence that this was a bad idea.  But what about doing something like this on a local level?

The UK does a great job funding museums and things with lottery money, and there are plenty of trusts which will patronize schemes like this.  Since the idea behind all this is actually to get people to want to come back a second time, it was probably not the best idea to try it at the most expensive house in the country.  A better plan would be do spread this around to several local opera companies (or orchestras), and get the locals to patronize their local societies.

I'm thinking here along the lines of things many orchestras in the US are doing these days, such as co-commissions from several groups, all of whom will play the work.  A grant similar to that of the Helen Hamlyn Trust could be made to fill seats in several regional houses for the same cost of doing Covent Garden.  That way nobody would have to pay for the train ticket all the way down to London from Sheffield, etc.

The same thing could be done in the US.  Will anyone try it?

Help Save Concertzender From Short-Sighted Bureaucrats

I just noticed this post at On An Overgrown Path that Concertzender, the terrific Dutch Public Radio broadcaster, is in danger of being shut down.

It seems that the Classical Music channel is getting more action on the cable networks than another popular music channel, the coordinator of which wants the bosses at Dutch Public Radio to simply kill the competition. That other channel has a much higher budget, and I'm sure some bureaucrats are going to look at this from the wrong end.

Enough letters of support came through to make them to temporarily postpone the decision, but Concertzender is still apparently on death row awaiting a phone call from the governor.  Rolf den Otter (who works on their webiste, I believe) sent a message to Pliable at On An Overgrown Path asking for help getting the word out.  And a tip of the hat to him for posting about it.

Here's the Concertzender main page, where you can check out all the channels they offer. They also have a blog, where they follow concerts and the music scene.  They just finished blogging about last week's Utrecht Early Music Festival.  It's in Dutch, of course, but there are plenty of translator apps available for web browsers these days.  (I like to try to struggle through it on my own first, but if I can't hack it I always use Mozilla's Firefox browser with the FoxLingo Add-on, which can handle a good number of languages.)

den Otter also asks for people to send an email to:  mening - AT - concertzender.nl  (I'm not posting the real spelling because letting the spambots have at him won't help anyone.)

Say something like "Please don't pull the plug," and mention where you're from, so they know they have more international support.

Now here's a link to send a message of support to the people who do the good work, to become a Friend of the broadcaster, or even make a small donation. 

Video Game Music For The Concert Stage - Metal Gear Solid

Just a further note about my suggestion that one way to attract new audiences to Classical Music is through the not-so-new video game soundtracks which are derived from tradition.  In case anyone thinks I'm kidding, note the audience reaction to this, a little something from "Metal Gear Solid":