It's about time there was such a straightforward guide available to explain how all of this works. As a player it makes wading through the process less stressful.

I can't think of anything more important than participating in my local schools. It's good to see a music director at this level talking about this.

This site is fantastic, I just forwarded to all my friends!

Excellent advice, Samantha! I find that listening to one's body and being open to the changes (good and not-so-good) that occur during aging can be very helpful in avoiding future problems. Playing a full career in music is much like running a marathon (or so I am told!) pacing and comfort is everything. Doing too much in too short a period results in life-long injuries for far too many in our profession.

Thank you for all your good advice, Samantha. I would like to add that understanding how our bodies are built and function is key to avoiding playing injuries. I recommend reading "What Every Musician Needs To Know About The Body" by Barbara Conable, and checking out the web site www.bodymap.org. In addidtion, Andover Educators offer a great 6-hour course around the country. This information saved my career!

I really like what Nathan has to say about continuing the negotiation process past negotiations. The problem (and frustration) I experience in my orchestra is there doesn't seem to be any way to do this. We don't get any help from the AFM; our negotiators come in during negotiations and then leave. I've heard from colleagues that they get some people from the AFM who come in every blue moon for a day or two then leave without ever putting anything into place.

Our local won't spend any money on bringing anyone in to help us with these issues and what we end up with are "facilitators" hired by our managers to help us do these things. I don't want someone selected by management and the board to tell us what to do.

We need to have a fire under our butts all the time. After our last negotiation our negotiator told us we need to keep up with these things but instead everyone just sat back and said "phew, glad that's over."

Another problem that bothers me is that in order for me to be a part of our negotiation team I would have to use personal and sick days from my other job just to have enough time to participate. That just isn't right when management has hired professionals to take care of things for them. I know this is something that larger budget groups don't have to worry about but it's a problem that needs to be addressed. Smaller budget groups which don't pay very well need additional financial support.

Why is this so difficult?!?!

Dear Katin,
It sounds as though you should contact me via private email to discuss your local situation (nathankahn@aol.com). I have no idea what orchestra or local you speak of. Has your local ever requested assistance from the AFM?

Your management does not have the legal right to decide who negotiates or faciliates on behalf of your union, unless your union voluntarily allows them to do so.

We in SSD negotiate many contracts for part-time orchestras where meetings are held on weekends or evenings. If you have a conflicting day job, others must also. I don't understand why your schedules cannot be accomodated to some extent.

But beyond this, we all must realize that in a democracy, be it in government or a democratic union, there is a participatory price to pay. No doubt about it-trying field participation for committees in smaller per-service orchestra is difficult, but somehow we always get it done, because musicians want and deserve a voice in their orchestra. Please email me and we can discuss further.

Congratulations and good luck with this new venture!
Goodness knows, we need better communication (with intelligence, honesty and respect) in our industry. Yes, that's a generalization and here are a few more before a closing observation.

Part of the broad discussion must be "What alternative avenues - other than the collective bargaining process - are available to the musicians to advance their cause (be it economic, artistic, strategic, whatever)?" Some panelists noted ongoing committees and I agree that Strategic Planning or Artistic Advisory or other committees SHOULD be helpful. But then the staff leadership turns over (usually with more frequency than board changes) or the Music Director moves on and the fundamental philosophy of even the most enduring Strategic Plan can be at risk! So as Laura observed, Collective Bargaining must be a COMPONENT (periodic) but will not be sufficient without ongoing communication. Collective Bargaining can sometimes knock a sound Management Plan off track (as in Carla's example) but it does not have to! When that happens, it is either because communication was insufficient OR there was a legitimate well-informed disagreement about the best course of action, even with a vision beyond the term of the CBA.

Here's the most salient point. Polyphonic.org gathers some of the best minds together for this discussion and others to come. But at any given orchestra, especially those below what the ASOL defines as Categories One and Two, what are the odds of having the best minds engaged in running the orchestra or conducting Collective Bargaining? My experience in my Category Three orchestra doesn't provide an optimistic answer over the long term. And I'll bet my colleagues in bigger
orchestras share some of my skepticism, too.

If the panel will provide enlightened thinking, will it translate to specific situations in the field, sometimes with less talented people? The musicians will have the services or expertise of experienced professionals like Laura or Nathan or Chris, especially for formal negotiations, but that is NOT the same thing as having experienced, intelligent committed musicians and managers for year-in & year-out maintainance and solid labor relations.

So maybe the only thing of real value I've said in all this after all is in the first sentence. GOOD LUCK! The application of your best thinking must happen in hundreds of orchestras, large and small, and result in people (labor & management!) at the grassroots level becoming better equipped to successfully engage in running their organizations, including navigating the collective bargaining process and so much more. Ongoing, honest, respectful intelligent communication is as important as it is rare.

One more time! GOOD LUCK! And thank you ALL for taking the time and making the effort. - at polyphonic.org and in your own orchestras.

As Eric insightfully pointed out (and confessed) in his opening contribution, each of us sees a different reality based on our personal experience and situation. Nathan gets to see A LOT of situations as he travels the country each year.

In my orchestra, we have NOT spent too much (or even enough!) on state-of-the-art computers or staff (where we have been woefully short for many years until recently). We HAVE been victimized by "rip-off arts consultants" more than once, however.

I don't think our industry suffers from too many Managers (staff or board) who are badly motivated regarding the role and the needs of the artists (although there are a few as we've seen in some recent high-profile cases). Rather, I think we will tend to agree on things in direct proportion to honest, intelligent and respectful communication. Let me add one more adjective - Tolerant! Just because someone doesn't hold the same view as I do, does NOT mean they are foolish or wrong. It means I should listen to them and they should listen to me. There's a chance we will still disagree at the end of the day, but at least we will all be better informed.

Being well motivated ain't enough! People in important positions who make decisions that impact the money and the art must be informed, including both broad concepts and unique local flavor.

Together we need to learn how to address the problem Nathan pinpoints at the end of his remarks - communities will fork over big dollars for concert halls, pricey guest artists, consultants, etc. But as we like to remind people here, "Supporting the Arts Means Supporting the Artists!"

Many Managers and almost all Musicians share the frustration. So what are we going to DO about it?
Carla and Nathan both bring considerable experience to addressing the problem. It's a start. Keep talking!!

Moderator's Note: In conjunction with Erich's comments above, Polyphonic.org contributor and Milwaukee Symphony Bassist, Roger Ruggeri, authored an excellent article on the topic of musicians serving on board committees. It is well worth your time and contributes an additional level of depth to this discussion.

Moderator's Note: For those unaware, Henry Fogel is the current president of the American Symphony Orchestra League and former president of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.

Carla,

I have yet to encounter a group of musicians who would not consider reasonable accomodation of work rules if the reasons for asking for such were well grounded, there were good economic reasons (both for the institution and the musicians) for doing so, and the accomodation did not pose hardship on the musicians, schedule-wise or other.

But you stated:
A definition of insanity, after all, is repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results.

Does the foregoing therefore render Bruckner insane?

Thank you, Drew, for pointing me in the direction of Roger Ruggeri's excellent article. The question of musicians' presence on Boards and ability to vote continues to be debatable, but especially in times of duress, it is a positive move, because it enhances communication and the educative process.

I enjoyed this article by Roger Ruggieri (whom I have never met, but hope to!). It pointed out so many important facts, and was written from the standpoint of an experienced musician, one who is willing to try something new to improve the understanding between board and orchestra. I am going to print out this article and carry it with me to show my colleagues in the NY Philharmonic. Orin O'Brien

I really like what Laura has to say but with regard to the above comment this is exactly the sort of thing I expressed frustration with in my response to Nathan on Monday. How are we supposed to do this? Sure, our AFM negotiators come in for a few weeks during negotiation times but that's it. they caution us to stay on top of things but then they're gone and we don't see them again until the next negotiation. Our local has no interest in helping us out even though we've asked time and time again and players who join committees tend to be clueless and just get repeatedly suckered by management.

The local complains that they have no money to fund any training but what I want to know is why doesn't the AFM spend money toward sending someone around to orchestras on a regular basis (like every three or four months) and have someone constantly review our financial records (again, every three or four months)? We already pay a lot of money in membership and work dues, why can't you use this money for these purposes? Personally, I'd be happy to simply pay 10% of my gross pay to go to dues and having someone come in on a regular basis (for more than just a few days at a time) and watch over the organization so we can do something before things fall apart instead of after the fact.

In my orchestra, the only efforts I see along these lines actually come from our managers and to me, things are just getting worse, not better because now the players fight more than ever (while our local just looks on doing nothing).

I'm sorry for not having contacted you yet Nr. Kahn, I'm still deciding if that's the best thing for me to do. your comment was very helpful and I did post a note to Ms. Brownell's entry today which responds to some of the things you said in your comment above.

When I mentioned that our management ha selected people to tell us what to do, that wasn't in regard to negotiations, it was having to do with the sort of "professional development" meetings we are required to go to sometimes where they bring people in to tell us how to think and act.

I would like to touch on what Chris Durham had to say regarding the "collective bargaining agreement negotiation environment". If I understand him correctly the employer is only obliged to discuss "wages" and "terms and conditions of employment" as mandatory subjects of bargaining. Anything in the area of "strategic direction" of an organization falls into the arena of "employer rights" and therefore not necessarily subject for discussion.

I think we need to define what exactly is meant by "terms and conditions" then. Are we talking about such things as: when to show up to work; when checks are distributed; sick leave; etc.; or can we expand it to include for instance: increased work; guaranteed weeks of work; exclusive use of orchestra; etc.? If we haven't the right to ask for more work how can we hope to grow the orchestra into a life sustaining job? What strategies should we be looking at to make improvements in these areas?

Mandatory subjects of bargaining do include demands for increased work such as the length of season or the number of guaranteed services per season. As well, we also discuss the length of services or any issue relative to hours worked and the conditions under which those hours are worked So yes we do have the right to ask for more work. Chris

Dear Curt et al,

As we move through this discussion, I believe one thing that we will all find is that on many issues in our industry there is not universal application, so therefore what I or others say may or may not apply in Dayton.

If there is any "tactic" that I am involved with, it is to represent the musicians and their local union to the best of my ability, and everything else supports that "tactic." I suppose to some degree we do focus on incremental changes, in that we are discussing changes to an existing contract, but it is my belief that all of that translates into dialogue, problem solving, compromise, and hopefully, resolution on the issues.

I agree with you in principle that it would be desirable if long-range strategic direction (without the actual specifics which should be left to bargaining) of an orchestra could be set forth in a long range planning committee, and have that strategic direction adhered to, to the extent possible.

But thereafter, we all know what happens. Orchestra Board personnel changes, Executive Directors may change, musicians serving on those strategic planning committees definitely change, and perhaps most compelling the economy, local dynamics and other factors cause far too many long range/strategic plans to be mothballed or dismissed. Many of those strategic plans were thoroughly discussed and researched by Board members, Executive Directors, staff, musicians and other professionals, and all came to the project with the best of intentions. I know this, because I have served on these long range/strategic committees several times, only to see our hard work set aside for some of the foregoing reasons.

So thereafter, those issues wind up reverting back to discussion in negotiation. From my viewpoint, I really don't see much difference, because whether the venue was a strategic/long range planning committee or negotiation, it all boiled down to honest discussion and problem solving between the parties.

In 1984 I served on a long range/strategic planning committee for my orchestra at the time, the Nashville Symphony Orchestra. The number of services were increasing, particularly the number of daytime services. At a salary of $9600 many musicians found themselves between a rock and a hard place, because trying to find additional employment that would fit within a hodge-podge of daytime and night-time services was difficult for some, impossible for others. At that time trying to survive economically was a serious matter for many NSO musicians. Repeatedly, we were promised by the Board and management that "once we get our financial house in order" we will put you on full time salary. But despite the good intentions of some, strategic planning, etc., it kept being put off, until the musicians were left with no other choice. In my opinion, the Nashville Symphony Orchestra would not have changed strategic direction and be the orchestra it is today if it were not for the 1985 negotiations and resulting work stoppage. In retrospect, who wouldn't have wanted the change in strategic direction to happen in meetings rather than on the streets, but unfortunately, at that time there was not adequate leadership at the Board level or in management to do so. And to those who might cite that the 1988 Nashville Symphony "bankruptcy" was a financial consequence of that negotiation, my response is those people do not know the real reasons behind that "bankruptcy."

There are several orchestras that I am very familiar with who have been victims of opportunistic arts consultants, and there are some very high 6 figure salaries being paid in this industry which I know I would certainly question.

I also want to make it known that despite our differences during last 3 Dayton Philharmonic negotiations which I have been involved with, I have nothing but the highest respect for you Curt, and your staff at the Dayton Philharmonic Orchestra.

Nathan Kahn

Eric pointed to a frustration of many musicians when dealing with long range or strategic planning sessions - the lack of orchestra musician desires in the final outcome. Almost inevitably it comes down to fiscal responsibility and the needs of the musicians are either lost somewhere in the middle or left off entirely. Negotiations have been far more successful in addressing the needs of musicians, not only in salaries and benefits but general working conditions, orchestra size, season length, etc.

HORROR STORIES!
The specific stories offered by Eric and the more general ones offered by Chris certainly rang true for me! Having read Julie Ayers wonderful book "More Than Meets the Ear" (loaned to me by a manager, by the way!), I am not surprised that such histories are widely shared. Problems with Unions and with Managers are universal at some point in every orchestra's saga.

Allow me one brief anecdote to re-focus on the original question posed to the Panelists. (Remember? - the comparative effectiveness of collective bargaining...)

With a sizable accumulated debt and a genuine cash flow crisis, my orchestra's executive Board went to the Endowment for a loan (to stay afloat). With considerable overlap between the Endowment & Symphony Board, a loan was secured with the stipulation that wages (staff & orchestra) would be FROZEN for TEN YEARS unless there was an annual surplus in excess of $200,000 - this in an orchestra that had only once achieved a surplus of that magnitude (in the first year of a multi-year capital campaign so the surplus was really just future pledges and not cash). There was one Musician on the Executive Board and he cast the lone "no" vote to that stipulation. Fortunately, subsequent collective bargaining resulted in a freeze lasting only one season.

Clearly, committee participation - especially token participation - was not an effective tool for advancing economic, artistic or strategic goals in this case! Collective bargaining was the more productive avenue.

The point is NOT that collective bargaining is the ONLY tool musicians have. Good managers will engage the expertise and commitment of Musicians on a continuing basis.

By the way, my anecdote has a happy ending. Staff salaries were unfrozen too, and staff positions were judiciously added. With that INCREASED spending in key revenue producing areas (marketing, development & education), the orchestra has put together a string of balanced budgets.

FUN WITH FICTION
I share Carla's bemusement that her Simplistic Fictional Orchestra negotiation generated so much heat. But I must add my own observation about that fictional scenario. Adding 3 musicians (to a fictional Core of 75) is a 4% increase that might have been compensation for the existing musicians. Instead they opted for a better product. This is a group of Musicians that a competent manager ought to be able to work with! (I don't care what fictional raise they negotiated).

REALITY
Now, back to the real world.
The original question did not ask the Panelists to attack or defend collective bargaining. Yet it has been critiqued and defended with considerable passion.

No one can possibly dissuade Musicians from collective bargaining. (I feel silly even saying something that obvious).
It is our constant - through the best of managers and the worst. (Yes, I share Chris' frustration that even the worst of managers continue to find employment in our field)!

But collective bargaining should not be our only tool to improve our own situations and the direction of our orchestras. Even with the best of managers, we find our institutions struggling.

COMMUNICATION
I'll reiterate my earlier point about honest, intelligent and respectful (tolerant) communication. It is VITAL if we are to change. That's my story and I'm stickin' with it!

Can we not harness the passion that swirls around how we negotiate our contracts and seek some way to put that energy to use TOGETHER? Collective bargaining ain't going away, folks, so let's find ways to make it better without eviscerating it (exemplary communication would be a start - you don't need IBB for that) and let's seek other ways to advance mutual agendas (like promotion, public awareness, outreach - subjects outside of just "wages, benefits & working conditions.")

CHANGE, ANYONE?
Do we like the way things are in our industry today? As pop psychiatrist Dr. Phil likes to ask his clients, "So, how's that workin' for ya?"

Do we recognize that we have a problem? Together?

After we're done critiquing or defending collective bargaining, we should be examining ways to improve our lot - to paraphrase Carla "to create a better climate for prosperity for the art and the artists."

Maybe that's not responding to the original question. But having beat that question to death with considerable vigor, let's acknowledge that collective bargaining, warts and all, is here to stay and we will ALL be better off if we shout a little less and listen a little more.

I'm not opposed to a hard ball negotiation - including a strike if the management offer forces the issue. But there is so much time we have at our disposal when we are NOT entangled in negotiations.

Collective bargaining is an important tool.
A necessary tool.
Sometimes a powerful tool.
But are we content to use just ONE tool?

You don't build anything that way.

Glad to see your on the road to recovery Robert! I heard that you injured the finger on your right hand. Given that you play the viola well, you guys don't use the pinky much eh?

I appreciate you agreeing with everythng I wrote! On one of your comments though of the legal concern of what and how we might speak at the table you write "...which means in practice that it is very hard to speak honestly and openly at the table". I cannot recall a time that I have ever been accused of being afraid to speak honestly at the table and I have made some very honest statements!!

Chris

Actually it was the left hand. You're only the 382nd person to suggest that a fourth finger is not an absolute requirement to play the viola, by the way. I'm hoping that I won't have to find out the hard way.

Yes, Chris, I've seen you be very honest at the table. But there's a different kind of honesty that happens at "sidebars" and other off-the record sessions. In my experience, such sessions get much more to the underlying interests than do formal on-the-record sessions; in fact, that's their purpose.

One way to look at IBB is to view it as a sidebar negotiation involving all of both negotiating teams.

Nathan Kahn wrote:

"The major difference between IBB and traditional bargaining is that power is a component in traditional bargaining, and it is not a component in IBB, by its very structure. As our Distinguished AFM SSD Counsel Leibowitz has said so many times, IBB will yield an orchestra "any settlement," and traditional bargaining will yield the "best possible settlement.""

I think power is a component in any negotiation. Power, in a negotiation, is, as Nathan hinted, fundamentally the power to say "no" and the other side's belief that you're willing to do so. It has nothing to do with the style of bargaining. I've been in several IBB-type negotiations where the power to say "no" and make it stick was most definitely part of the landscape. And I've been in a few traditional negotiations where both sides knew the musicians weren't going to strike. In which situation did the musicians have the most leverage?

The numbers are good in Colorado, but don't come to any conclusions yet. We are in negotiations now for a new contract, and it will be interesting to see how new contract is reflective of progress we've seen at the box office. The article was a bit rosy in my view, but we have been in a positive place this year. Wish everybody luck!

I wonder if anyone has taken a look at the old Harmony Magazine article "Hoshin andthe Pittsburgh Symphony". It isn't exactly IBB vs. CBA, but it is interesting and even inspiring. I've taken it as a wonderful example of when a large group of people who care deeply about their organization find a new language in which to discuss, strategize and ultimately come together.

Regarding "Hoshin," I strongly suggest the writer speak to the Orchestra Committee of the Pittsburgh Symphony to get the full story.

A very heartfelt thanks to Drew McManus, Polyphonic.org and all involved. Now that I have finally had a chance to read all of the postings I found this exchange enlightening and a very significant contribution to our industry. Bravo!

Thanks to all who participated in this first Polyphonic Virtual Panel Discussion and to Drew McManus for putting this together. Even though the week is over we still welcome your comments and encourage you to continue the discussion. Below are some links to Harmony articles that have been referenced in the negotiation discussion, or may offer additional perspectives.

Some New Ways to Think about the Collective Bargaining Process, by Tom Bacchetti, Harmony #5

Contract Renewal Process: Through Musicians' Lenses (a roundtable discussion), Harmony #16

Hoshin and the Pittsburgh Symphony, by Gideon Toeplitz, Harmony #7

Ramon Ricker, Editor in Chief, Polyphonic.org

Mouthpiece pressure is not going to be quantified by scientific studies. There is no constant among the different embouchures/musculatures of different players (i.e, too many variables). We need point students more in the direction of proper mechanics and a better understanding of the performance arena and how it can affect both the psyche and the physical aspect of sound production. Personally, I believe that the warm-up is the single most important thing we can teach a student. How to stretch, how to develop strength, accuracy, agility and confidence to produce. Pressure is always going to be an issue that bothers people, but the fact is we will always need some amount of pressure to form a seal with the mouthpiece. When is it too much? When you can't get a note out or you tire too quickly.

Great article Doug, Bravo! I especially liked your comment about the lack of advancement pay for career symphonic musicians, other than the contractual raises we fight for each time, and some seniority pay, if the contract provides for it. At retirement, musicians deserve to have much more to take with them than just memories, and maybe a fake Rolex. Bravo again!

As a good friend of a retired orchestra librarian, I know for a fact that most librarians would not tolerate the first word of the second paragraph not being capitalized.

Is this the format that Baltimore Symphony used?

My situation was an interesting one. I won my position about two weeks before graduating with a Performance Diploma from the Peabody Conservatory. I came back to Baltimore from Portland, Oregon and attended my graduation and then went to Tanglewood Music Center for my second summer. In between, I "negotiated" my contract, which was slightly unusual in that I was offered the position of Acting principal for the first year due to the unexpected resignation of the Principal violist just before the audition. I had NO idea of what to do in terms of negotiating a contract, and talked to a couple of orchestral musicians, including the BSO's principal violist Richard Field for some general advice. I wish there had been a program like that at Eastman at Peabody! While at Tanglewood, I was sent parts to bow for the upcoming season and even advised on when we would need subs and extras and just did my best. I was 25 at the time this all was going down.

What were my worries going in to the audition? I was wondering how I was going to pay of my maxed out credit card from the three previous auditions that had ended in no position, and playing well enough to at least make the finals this time.

What would the job be like? I had no idea of the amount of music that a professional goes through in a week, especially in my orchestra in my first few years, where we often played three or four folders a week with rehearsals staggered all over the place - it was a shock to my system which only the quick pace of Tanglewood rehearsals gave me some advance training. I thought that the orchestra would be one big, happy family, and in some respects I was right, but it's also a normal, somewhat dysfuctional family, and it has a history and skeletons in the closet, so to speak, and you have to tread carefully at first to know where those landmines are hidden.

I think that today's orchestral musicians are smarter about evangelizing their roles in society and the role that the orchestra plays in their communities. We know that we are cultural ambassadors not so much to the rest of the world, but to our own small part of it. The statement "think globally, act locally" really applies to us now more than ever. I think that we're also learning, in the organized labor sense, that what is good for the goose is good for the gander - that the orchestra, both players and management, is (or should be) an organic whole, whose health overall really affects each part's quality of life.

Nathan - I applaud not only your analysis of current music school training programs, but also your boldness in putting forward a prospective curriculum.

I strongly second the idea of having a required minor. I actually pursued a second degree in college, and the skills I obtained as an English major are of significantly more use to be in my orchestral work than several of my undergraduate music courses.

I find it interesting that as we decide how to best prepare young musicians for the evolving role of the orchestral musician, the majority of faculty at the conservatory/major music schools have no actual personal experience in the field aquiring and utilizing these skills. A student of any discipline will learn from a different perspective when under the tutelage of an expert in that discipline. It seems that the faculties of these institutions are increasingly out-of touch with today's musician model. Perhaps visiting faculty workshops and seminars from orchestral musicians who are immersed in this work would be valuable to the educational experience of the students. However, at the core of all the additional skills the orchestral musician must now hone, the personal musicianship and high level of technical execution is still central!

First, I would like to thank Drew for asking me to "sit" on this panel.

It is very interesting, and encouraging, to see that there are others who share the same opinion, specifically about the changing "role" of the orchestral musician and the benefit of "reality-based" education.

I teach career development courses in the School of Music at the University of Minnesota. One approach for helping aspiring orchestral musicians begin to understand the realities and opportunities of the field is our new course, "Inside the 21st Century Orchestra" offered in partnership with the Minnesota Orchestra and St. Paul Chamber Orchestra. The course featured many guest speakers from all facets of these organizations--ranging from musicians, to the presidents of both orchestras, to experts on musicians' health, education, unions, auditioning, employment issues, development, marketing, library and more. The range of speakers (each freely sharing the ups and downs of the field from their specific perspective) helped the students recognize that orchestras are businesses as well as venues for art. Orchestras have many of the same issues and challenges of any business and some unique ones too, of course. Often, the rather glamorous image precludes the reality of daily life in an orchestra and new members are profoundly surprised. Some of the students in the class are already in the audition pipeline and others are subbing with these two orchestras, still others are starting to consider orchestra management options, so the networking opportunities were a real bonus. This course could easily be adapted by orchestras/music schools in other locations. I'd be happy to share more and am curious to hear about other approaches. And thanks for launching this important discussion topic!

Moderator's Note: In 2001, the Eastman School of Music established the Institute for Music Leadership which offers a wide variety of courses, programs, and partnerships "to better prepare students for entry into the challenging and changing professional music world of the 21st century". I'm certain we'll learn more about some of those programs from Jim and the graduate students throughout the week.

My expectations for my first job were high. Judging from the audition excerpt list, I assumed that the orchestra would play large works: Don Juan, Prokofiev 5, Schumann 3, Stravinsky Firebird etc. But when I ended my first season, I had experienced works that were mostly classical and baroque. Also, a number of "concerts" were slapped together for kiddie, or pops. Lack of rehearsals on really difficult but popular pieces really made for an embarrassing product. Our school concerts also misrepresent the orchestra as we divide into chamber groups. The kids never get to see the full symphony unless they actually come to a real concert. It has been a disappointing several years and I wish I had known more about the orchestra before I signed the contract and invested my life to this area.

James Undercofler wrote:



I could not agree more with your statement. It is heartening to hear of other innovative programs, as is mentioned herein about the University of Minnesota School of Music.

In all of my years of serving on university music faculty, then in symphony orchestras, and now with the American Federation of Musicians, unlike other professional fields, the academic and professional arenas of music performance have, and to a large extent still operate in their own respective worlds, which is why most conservatory cirriculum is still where it is.

Yes, a summit is needed. May I suggest that a school like Eastman be the catalyst for covening an initial a meeting that includes the leadership of the National Association of Schools of Music, the American Federation of Musicians, ICSOM, OCSM, ROPA, and the American Symphony Orchestra League to begin discussions on this most important topic?

Dear (nathankahn), thanks for the encouragement to hold a "summit." You may know that I am leaving Eastman to go to the Philadelphia Orchestra, -- but/and I think I can work from my new role to get this summit going.

With thanks,
Jim Undercofler

I tend to agree with elizabeth miller. I too got suckered into this profession despite warnings from my teacher. The "glamor" of being in a symphony quickly dies as you are no longer an individual. You are a tool, a cog, and your ideas, how great, or helpful they might be, are ignored at every turn. Plus, the welcome by the veteran members is not always as warm as it should be. Not that there needs to be a red carpet, but a little support during the tenure process would be helpful and professional.

First off, thanks to everyone at Polyphonic for creating a well informed forum for the business of classical music. The early returns have been promising and thought provoking.

The current discussion "Great Expectations" seems to bring back very well worn questions - questions which are nonetheless still worth exploring:

1. Is the job of a music school to help instrumentalists get a job, or to be a well educated, versatile musician? Are these the same thing? If not, how are they different?
2. Is increased focus on getting an orchestral job good for the business of music, or detrimental?
3. If a music school altered its curriculum to better prepare instrumentalists for auditions, what does that do for students who might be very talented, but not entirely sure they want an orchestral job? Would we be shielding them from other opportunities? (Perhaps it would be interesting to hear from people who actively pursued an orchestral job, but have not yet been entirely successful in that pursuit.)

There is no question that schools have a difficult time adequately preparing musicians for the "real world," but we have to remember they have many obligations they must meet as an institution of higher learning, more so if the school is affiliated with a university with a core curriculum. Add to that the labor and contract issues, it becomes nearly overwhelming. If we alter the educational focus to a very narrow scope, then we have changed the institutions into trade schools - which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on ones point of view.

Truly it is an extremely daunting task to decide how best to prepare musicians for post college life. It is much easier for those of us already working in some capacity to play Monday morning quarterback, but what do we do for those just starting out? At what point in their lives do we commit them to the more intensive path of orchestral audition preparation? And the million dollar question (which Drew has already asked) - how much does the audition process prepare your for the realities of orchestral/musical life?

I completely agree with these statements, and in particular those from Gloria. Over the past decade, and my own varied educational experience, I have been less than impressed with my preparedness for dealing with 'real world' career issues. After having attended the top music schools in the country/world, I have only been trained to be a performer in the symphonic field. What's unfortunate is that the job market has not increased over the past several years for all of the highly qualified musicians graduating from conservatories every spring, and we are then shocked suddenly and left in turn to figure something out in order to make a living, and try to maintain some semblance of optimism. While I have had many experiences in top professional organizations, I have yet to land that one audition that will ultimately give me 'peace of mind'. (And perhaps my calling isn't even in the orchestral world after all.)

While the faculties of our schools seem out of touch with today's job market, they are only giving us what they know, based on their own past experiences, which reflect a time where the working musicians world was indeed a different place. Therefore, it is infact a tough job to convince our faculties to make a change, esp. into a world which is foreign and unknown to them, and one which they may or may not have any experience with--technology being a primary example.

It is my feeling that it is up to today's generation of young musicians to implement the kinds of new ideas that will not only give us performance opportunities, but will put us on the road to preserving our art through creative problem solving. We also need those in positions of leadership to be open minded to new ideas and alternatives to our traditional roles in our communities. It is time to expand our definition of who we are as classical performers, and start embracing our society as it is today.

As a former Eastman student, I applaud the school's efforts at beginning a dialog and creating an awareness, as well as a forum for those of us with these thoughts and ideas. I only wish that the institute existed when I was there. I hope that these kinds of dialogues can happen more between those in administrative and leadership positions.

As an audience member, I was intrigued about your experiment to interact with audiences during intermission time. I can imagine my response in such a situation would have been an enthusiastic and appreciative one. I couldn't help but wonder about the instances described when orchestra members are not in sync on a personal, relational level. Do most musicians believe that has an effect on the performance the audience hears? You compared those relationships to those of partners or spouses, and we all know bad relationships have an effect on those around us. Interesting to me!

Sam, I enjoy your holistic view on the art. It is refreshing to read your views, and the questions you pose will resonate in my own head for a while.

Tim, did you read your cba when you first got your job? I didn't read mine until well into mine. I'm wondering if it would have been effective to have someone go over it with me. Do you think that the new memebers of an orchestra should be guided through the cba with a veteran member?

I did not get my hands on a copy of the cba until I was well into my first year with the Richmond Symphony. I think that it is very helpful for veteran members of an orchestra to guide new musicians. Knowing the organizational history of an orchestra is important. -Tim Judd

New and continuing dialogue between music schools and 'real world' organizations is vital. The 'summit' idea is a good one, but I wonder what happened after the esymposium on musician careers and live meeting at Aspen that followed it last summer (see culturethreads.net). There was strong funding for the project and there were great promises of follow-up after the live meeting, but there hasn't even been a summary statement since the symposium wrapped up in July 2005. Anyone have any information on this? What worked? Where were the disconnects? Are the "sides" so far apart the conversation just stopped? Before launching another symposium on this topic it's important to learn from previous efforts so that each new effort has the benefit of previous work.

Another huge factor in the loss of artistic identity (and artistic level) is the quality of the hall and how we hear each other on stage. I find that when I cannot hear myself, either due to high sound levels on stage or just because of a dead spot on stage where our stand has been located, my tone quality and intonation immediately take a nosedive. Only some careful scales and etudes the next morning will help - but it's almost never talked about in the context of music education at the conservatory level. I was lucky to have studied with the two past principals of the Philadelphia Orchestra, and they constantly talked about being vigilant to the toll of orchestral playing on one's technique and on solutions to keep one's level up.

As far as the varying schedule factor, it's always very difficult to play a couple weeks of kids concerts and pops followed by an incredibly demanding classical subscription concert - and this is rarely talked about at school, either.

Just this past year, with such an influx of new players (three violists, alone) a senior member of our negotiating team led the new members of the orchestra through the cba and some of the history that led to the current form it takes. I hope that it will continue in all future seasons, not just negotiating years.

I wonder really how many professional musicians really "don't know" where their music comes from as the introduction suggests. I certainly think that most already do know, and most appreciate the hard work that went into.

Even in my very first part-time ROPA job, I thoroughly knew who put the music on the stands and in the folders. I wonder if the average professional would rather know some of the rental and copyright laws. As for all librarians being musicians, why is this point being made as though musicians treat them like second class members of the orchestra. In my ensemble, the librarian is part of our CBA.

However, that doesn't mean all librarian's have equal training and experience to players. In my orchestra, I know our librarian has never held a full-time playing job, but that doesn't mean I don't respect and appreciate their level of professionalism in what they do as a librarian.

Sweeping statements like those made by the author sound more like an agenda than anything else. When I hear librarians telling me how much of an equal professional they are in the same way this article does (especially point #1), it sounds more like they are trying to compensate for feelings of inadequacy more than anything else. I wonder, if given the choice, would librarians select the position of librarian over that of performer?

I respect my librarian because they are a consummate professional, but I've worked with librarians in the past that I would classify as hacks. So in that respect, I suppose maybe they are just like everyone else.

Hello Gregory,

Thank you for writing! It's great to know that many playing colleagues are informed and aware of the different aspects of their orchestras. And, of course most professional players would already be knowledgeable about the more visible parts of the librarians' role. It's important to remember that one of the main missions of this website is to educate players coming into the field who have not yet attained their first professional position, as well as to expand the knowledge of those already working. A bit of a broad audience, but perhaps something for everyone.

I asked Marcia to write an overview so that we can launch our column subjects from there, and then explore the topics in more detail later. Kind of a "back-to-basics" beginning. She is one of the most experienced, articulate librarians in the United States today and, from her vantage point, has pretty much seen it all. I hope that, as a more seasoned player, you will be patient with us while we go through these subjects in which you may already be well-versed, and continue to be part of the discussion as we get into the less well-known areas later.

We will definitely be addressing many other issues such as you suggest -- rental parts, copyright laws, CBA's, legibility/size/condition of parts, pops artist music, different editions, orchestrta library budgets, how the process of programming affects the players from the standpoint of they physical music, the physical library, digital publishing, digital cataloguing, digital music delivery, how long we will have paper parts, and much more -- and it is very good to know there is an interest in such topics. So, I'm very glad you brought that up.

A couple of thoughts about your other points: of course, in any field or profession, there are always differences in level of ability and training, experience, work ethic, creativity, attention to detail, or just style. As true for librarians as for players, or, as you rightly point out, for anyone else.

But, one of the reasons professional orchestra librarians, and, more specifically, MOLA librarians, bring up this topic of "librarians as equals" is that so many times they are not viewed as such. I am always delighted to know when a librarian is a member of the CBA and is recognized as a professional in an orchestra by not only the managers and staff, but also the players. It may sound ridiculous to even have to say it, and it is obvious your orchestra is one of the enlightened groups, but believe me, it is not always the case. Just the topic of whether or not a librarian is in the CBA will take up several of our columns, and I suspect there are many players out there who are not yet aware of that issue.

Finally, the answer to your question about if given the choice, would librarians select that position over performer -- you may be surprised to learn that most of the librarians would indeed select their profession over playing. It's a different world today in which orchestra librarians make this as a career choice rather than doing it "on the side" for extra money or because no one else will. That's because it's a different job and career now, and exactly the point Marcia is trying to make -- the full-time orchestra librarian job of today requires extensive training and skills in order to handle all the expectations of the job as she listed. With multiple conductors, more and more-varied programming, budgetary concerns that inhibit extra rehearsals or rehearsal overtime, and orchestras seeking more innovative ways to attract audiences, you want your librarian to have skills and expertise to navigate all the musical complexities. One of MOLA's main functions is to be an educational resource for those in the orchestra library field, since there is not a university/conservatory curriculum for the job. As the standards continue to rise, this is more crucial than ever.

Well, that reply gets into a number of things we will be writing about later that, hopefully, will be of interest. Thanks again for reading the column and responding,

Karen Schnackenberg
polyphonic.org Contributor

In more than thirty years I have not regretted my choice of professions; nor have I ever wanted to work in any other field.

Good music thrills me, whether playing or listening. I'm pleased -- and privileged -- to have spent these years right in the thick of it, as an orchestra librarian.

I'd write more, but I have to get back to work . . .

Paul Gunther
Principal Librarian
Minnesota Orchestra

Katin--
Thank you for pointing out the problem with Karen's intro. The "second paragraph" was supposed to be a bullet list, not a paragraph. We have fixed it. Please forgive this lapse -- Word articles were being oh-so-quickly converted to HTML formatting in time for the launch in April, and none of us caught this one.
Ann Drinan, Senior Editor

These three articles are a must read for every orchestra member! Thank you for your words of wisdom and philosophy! I have emailed copies of your article to several of my friends and they all are in agreement.

This is an article every ROPA orchestra should post on their bulletin boards. Especially around negotiating season! I realize that not every ROPA would like to end up a success story just like Nashville; some just want to stay the course. But isn't it about time to hear about how an orchestra pushed its way through the dirt, grew up and blossoms so beautifully like Nashville.

Very good points! I wish there was a way to articulate some of these facts to the general audiences out there. But more importantly, we musicians need to be reminded of these sacrifices we make every now and then, too. It is far too easy to forget what we put into the product sometimes.

I hope conservatories are paying attention: Peabody, New England, Mannes? Hello, anyone home? I only wish they would have had these things on tap when I was a college student. Oh, the things we could have learned back then, and the pain and suffering we could have avoided now.

I'm really looking forward to further installments of Ron's excellent guide. My sense is that while his articles are "must-reading" for musicians on finance committees, much of what he's writing also would be enlightening to many of the non-musicians on those committees because they have little experience with the realm of non-profits. Bravo and keep it coming!
Roger Ruggeri

Why hasn't anyone commented on this yet? Bringing your "A Game" to the hall at all times is something we really need to be talking more about. I know in orchestras where I've played it's really hard to do that since the working environment is so terrible but if it's ever going to get better we're going to have to fix it ourselves. Maybe Roger should start a Miss Manners style column. Mr. "A" Game?

It's a good start to see younger player take such an interest. With people on task with this mentality, there may be a fighting chance to keep the industry afloat. Bravo Tim for blazing a trail that so many seem to be ignoring (young and old).

This article, recently posted on the demise of Warner Classics, is another sign of the diminishing presence of Classical Music in CD form. http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/060612-NL-crash.html

R. Oyster

Hello and thank you for this greatly needed discussion. After reading the pannelists' statements, I am suprised that the audience (that crucial third party in music making) receives almost no mention. As a violinist who's passion is presenting new music to audiences, I propose that the fact that we are leaving the audience out of consideration is the foundation of the disconnect we are discussing. In a recent conversation with a composer from whom I am commissioning a new piece, I asked that the new work be in some way accessable to the audience. The composer was almost offended and informed me that under no circumstances would he be limiting his creativity by thinking of what the audience wants. It was as if I had suggested that I ask him to sell his integrity. Why is that? From a performer's standpoint, the audience is crucial. If I alienate my audience, they will not return.

I have performed in orchestra concerts in which new music was received with roaring enthusiasm from the audience. At the same time, I have never seen the orchestra work harder or with more passion to get it right. If going to hear the premier of the new symphony was the enticement for huge audience turn-out, wouldn't musicians of the orchestra be more inclined to put the hard work in? By the same token, wouldn't audiences be more likely to love the music if the enthusiasm of the musicians was palpable? Let's bring the audience back into the discussion!

I agree that the audience should be part of the equation. Some new pieces are noisy and difficult to listen to, therefore alienating the very audience members whom we are trying to encourage. If those people do not return to the concert hall, this translates into lost wages for musicians. That is why musicians may seem wary of composers who sniff at the concept of pleasing an audience. Also, we are often forced to spend long hours figuring out how to achieve certain effects or rhythms simply because of the lack of clarity in the instructions or the awkward notation. Sometimes the problem is mis-aligned staves, bad spatial rhythmic orientation of notes, illegibility, or too many unnecessary changes of meter or counter-rhythms, which causes the music to become much more difficult than it really is. We are often frustrated by the lack of musicality in a new performance, simply because we are so busy just counting furiously that we can't get a grip on the lines and phrases emerging around us. More cues in the parts would help a performance enormously, resulting in far fewer mistaken entries. I would also encourage composers to learn more about the capabilities and ranges of orchestral instruments. Sometimes books on orchestration can be misleading, especially for harp. Effects that work in one register do not work at all in another, or are so soft that they do not work in a tutti section. In our orchestra, we have regular reading sessions, in which the composers are present, and we have feedback sheets to fill out. The composers are allowed a little time to explain their concepts to us before we start. I always welcome composers to ask me questions about my instrument, and particularly love open-minded composers who are willing to change a badly-written part. I am pleased to see a trend toward more accessible music. I hope that grant committees reward the composers who are writing music that we will still want to hear 200 years from now.

Chris, enjoyed your article very much! well written!

Thanks for your opening statement, Lisa. To try and answer your honest and specific question about orchestral musicians' values in playing new music: the absolute number one priority for me in playing a new orchestral work is none of these things you have listed. Rather, it is falling into the spell of a piece that absolutely grips, from first bar to last, on an emotional, intellectual, and physical level. The composer is unimportant, the genre or style is irrelevant, even the new cool sounds are small potatoes compared with the incredible power and sweep possible in orchestral music. I and most of my colleagues, I would venture, are complete junkies for this. Chris Woehr, viola player, St. Louis

I think your statement is so helpful for players in terms of seeing composers as human beings, working very very hard to do their absolute personal best. Most of my orchestral colleagues have NO IDEA how much work goes into a piece for a modern full orchestra. As I sometimes like to point out in exceedingly whiney moments, in $/hour, I get more by a factor of several thousand as a player than as a composer. This usually doesn't sink in, but they do notice my glasses getting thicker each year. Chris Woehr, viola player/composer, St. Louis

Thanks, Robert! Only once in my 35 year career have I been aware of a conductor doing a piece because of my telling him about it. (Unfortunately, he was not a very good conductor, and the experience ended up as rather miserable. It was the F# Minor Mass of Bruckner, which I love). Perhaps the most valuable course that could be offered in a music school might be a personal communications course. Nerdy practice room types, the ones who can win auditions and get jobs in orchestras, are often not naturally blessed with the personal skills necessary to ingratiate themselves with the boss. I at least am proof of this. Is there an orchestra where the conductor does not have complete power over repertoire (Orpheus, perhaps?) How do its players feel about the repertoire? How does the audience feel? I would be curious. Chris Woehr, viola player, St. Louis

For a number of years, St. Louis had a thriving Composer-In-Residence program. I remember in particular the efforts of two of these composers, Donald Erb and Joan Tower, in bringing musicians, civilians, and composers together. It even extended to arranging dinner dates between small groups with visiting composers like John Corigliano and Christopher Rouse. It was a wonderful time, and I miss it. I think it also gave a recurring face to the audience, so that a composer began to be seen as a regular member of the team, as opposed to a transient hired subcontrator. Haydn at Esterhazy, Bach in Leipzig, Beethoven or Brahms in Vienna, Wagner in Bayreuth. Real people you could see walking down the street, in rehearsal, in pubs.
It seems to me it shouldn't take much to get something like this to happen again, in an organized, compensated, regular way, and have it be normal operations for any successful orchestra. Most composers, I would wager, have a great deal to offer, as teachers, artists, and memorable characters. Why not take advantage of it? Chris Woehr, viola player, St. Louis

Funny you should mention Joan Tower, given my fond memories of her great job as St. Louis Composer-In-Residence and general creative ambassador of good will and comradeship. Given the considerable number of unused services currently in the St, Louis Symphony schedule, maybe she should be asked back.
The people who make the budgets, the top administration of an orchestra, are probably far away from this way of thinking during these modern times. Our orchestra at the moment is being run like a bank, with Endowment Growth almost as the very reason for existence. We have an incredibly energetic new music director, David Robertson, who could certainly get behind reviving and re-invigorating the Composer-in -Residence program for our orchestra. This, perhaps helped by sustained lobbying from orchestra members on various committees and the Board, is what it would take. Even with the usual obstacles, St. Louis is very fertile ground. I will do a little plowing. Chris Woehr, viola player, St. Louis

Absolutely! Right on!
The emotional connection of a composition with a player is often surpisingly physical. Hearing my mother light up about playing certain pieces of music because they felt so satisfying to play, either melodically or rhythmically, was an important experience of my growing up in a musical household. Rachmaninoff, Bartok, Schubert, Schumann all could turn on this light for my mom. The actual audience doesn't have this immediate first hand experience of physical movement in emotional context, but sitting in front of 60 string players bowing powerfully and in unison toward a climax, they can get pretty close.
Chris Woehr viola player, St. Louis

To that end, I strongly recommend attending a 5 day workshop which has proven of immense value to me as a composer and player. This is a workshop called The Art of Improvisation, run by master teacher and improvising cellist David Darling and the expert instructors of Music For People.
Where else can you bring together 70 musicians from across the world spectrum of music making, and have them free jam, without sheet music, without pre-organized chord structure, without judgment or negativity or fear? From orchestra and chamber musicians to piano teachers and Djembe drummers and bluegrass musicians and singers and digeree-doo players, it's an amazing and life transforming week. If you think you might have a compositional bone in your poor tired orchestral body, this workshop will unearth it, clean it off, and get you pounding a drum with it.
Chris Woehr [l=http://www.musicforpeople.org/][/l]

Thanks, Drew, for organizing this shin-dig. I hope it helps to improve life on all sides of the podium.

It's only been the first day and already it seems we have an overarching theme of communication, or lack thereof. One of those intangibles that is never taught - probably can't be taught - but has a huge impact on the success of a new work. Whether it's the composer's music that doesn't engage with its intended audiences (including the orchestra), the composer's intentions that may or may not be clearly conveyed through the written page or the various personal interactions that do or don't take place throughout the creative process, if these lines of communication are rusty, vague or non-existent, nobody's gonna have any fun and then what's the point?

At first glance, a layperson might look at this mess and suggest that the composer simply write a pretty tune, enroll in an orchestration class and go hang with the orchestra at the local pub after rehearsal (actually, those sound pretty good so far) and life would be good. But they're all band-aids...and they all assume the composer's work has been selected for performance, which could be a huge assumption and not a small item of concern for the composer.

One precept of this entire discussion seems to be bringing out is the contrasts, rather than the disconnects, between the viewpoints of the performers and the composers. Performers could be more aware of how it feels for a composer to have 60-100 highly-trained, highly-motivated individuals looking up and expecting that composer to know, well, "everything". Composers might realize that they have intimate contact with each and every performer with an object that can be very dangerous if not handled properly - the part. All these issues can raise the stress levels and create conflict where it isn't necessary. As has already been mentioned, the more forethought that the administration puts into the preparations for a new work, including scheduling enough rehearsal time, opportunities for interaction between the composer and performers, etc., the better the entire process could be.

I would like to pose these questions to the panelists and see what comes of it:
- Would or does the presence of a full-time composer-in-residence with an orchestra have a positive affect on the attitudes of performers towards composers and new music?
- Going off of Robert's mention of performers having little to do with the overall programming of ensembles, what might be some creative ways to address and alter that fact?
- Do all of these issues start up at the professional level, or are there opportunities for these issues to be addressed during the education of all involved?

Thanks again!

Moderator's Note: Rob, you're very welcome and I have to point out that this was very much a team effort internally at Polyphonic.org as well as a collaboration with NewMusicBox . Additionally, we have a wonderful article from Chris Woehr and next week we'll be publishing an article by SPCO Bassoonist, Charles Ullery, about more new music issues.

[Moderator's note: this comment has been edited from its original form.]
What distressed me at the top of this discussion was the attitude of the un-named musician towards his or her job. Doesn't this realize it is a privilege to be an orchestral musician? To be the real-time, live communicative medium between artwork and audience, and to be paid a decent living for it? To perform new music that could change someone's life? I think that should be a great honor. I have honestly never met a composer who had this kind of attitude towards his or her profession... For me personally, to write for an orchestra of eighty or so highly sophisticated and experienced professional musicians and to hear them play my work for a large, eager audience is a truly extraordinary thing, one which I would never pooh-pooh.

Regardless of individual or collective complaints within the orchestra (artistic control, union rules etc.—why don't the players join together and DO something about it if they are unhappy?), I believe that composers have great respect for the orchestra as a whole and for individual players. I also believe that in general composers get a terrific education in how to write for the orchestra. I also believe that composers learn how to write for the orchestra (and for an audience) by hearing their work performed - not just once but multiple times. There is no way to judge the success or failure of a work until it has been performed many times for many audiences. To put in all that work - composing and rehearsing - for just one performance is a huge shame.

There's been some finger-pointing too (the composer did this or that! the orchestra did this or that!), even if no names have been named. Sure, everyone wants to do their job well, and one person can sink the whole experience for everyone. In the composer-orchestra relationship, the responsibility is a two-way street. The composer's job is to write well for the orchestra on a technical level, as if he or she were a performer on every instrument; to bring the utmost artistic integrity and individuality to his or her work; to write something that he or she would like to sit in the audience and listen to; and to show up whenever possible and work with the orchestra, to be a real human being. The orchestra's job is to investigate the work and take interest in it; to respect the integrity of the work and the composer; and muster all its combined ability, experience and know-how to communicate the work to the audience in polished, committed performances. Also, I believe it is so important to have an open mind. I have had both great and not-so-great experiences working with orchestras; I'm sure each musician has had great and not-so-great experiences working with composers. But I want to share one of the most wonderful moments that I had with orchestra players: after a performance of my work, two violinists came up to me and said "When we first looked at your music, we hated it...but now we really like it!" Personally, I would like to have more of those kinds of experiences myself: to be convinced of the wonderful-ness of something new. I think that's what should happen between composer, orchestra, and audience, and in the best of situations it does.

Another thread that briefly came up that irked me is the preference for so-called 'accessible' music. I fear that this leads to an under estimation of the audience. This often goes hand-in-hand with what I see as an artificial distinction between 'tonal' and 'atonal' music. The implied hierarchy is 'tonal: pleasing and good, audience will like'; 'atonal: displeasing and bad, audience will hate'. This is simplistic at best, damaging at worst. For example, Minimalist music, like that of Glass or Reich, is 'tonal' in the sense of using triadic harmony, but not tonal in the sense that it does not follow 19th century-style harmonic progressions and voice-leading rules. The oft-loved music of Copland, thought of as 'tonal', is often based on quartal harmonies, which are, in a strict sense, dissonant. There are passages in Bach (or Mozart, or Beethoven for that matter) that are so far-out as to be 'atonal'. Definitions of tonality, of consonance and dissonance, change over time. Renaissance counterpoint, Beethoven's modulations, Schoenberg's twelve-tone concepts, Messiaen's modes of limited transposition - these are all different concepts of how to organize sound, and isn't music about organizing sound in time? The judgement of 'tonal' vs. 'atonal' is about as false and ridiculous as a judgement of 'black' vs. 'white'.


What if we had more respect for the audience? What if we gave them the tools to understand new and potentially fulfilling kinds of music? It's not the 19th century anymore! There is an amazing variety of music out there. Show how languages evolved. Give them Liszt first, then Bartók, then Ligeti. Fauré, then Ravel, Messiaen, and Takemitsu. Show how splits happened: for example, Stravinsky vs. Schoenberg. As it happens, those two respected each other's work much more than you'd think. When Stravinsky heard the news of Schoenberg's death, he sat in silence for a whole day. Why should we split music of the past into warring camps? Why should we split music of the present into warring camps?

Music is a language whose vocabulary has been expanding since Day One, and 'accessibility' ensures most people won't learn much beyond the major scale. I am upset at the dumbing-down of new music, and to me, 'accessible' is a code-word, a euphemism for this. Composers - and orchestras - shouldn't fall prey to that. I can get dumb, easily digestible entertainment on television or the movies. The world is constantly changing, yet there's an incredible, almost violent attachment to this 'tonality'. Yet, as I've tried to argue above, 'tonality' can be a vague concept. I don't believe that new music has to be derivative of the past in order to reach an audience. I believe there are audiences out there that want to hear something new and surprising (and if not shocking, at least refreshing) at an orchestra concert, and if not they'd much rather stay home. Bravo to everyone who is genuinely committed to keeping this relationship fresh and real.

I find Barbara's ideas here particularly compelling because they attack two important issues. The first is that with such an outlet, musicians would be able to access the control they currently feel they don't have in the artistic process. Having that ready outlet would help those already interested in new work to discover more of it and also perhaps motivate those who don't follow the field to dig in and get up to speed with what composers are writing today and why. The energy that builds among the musicians during this process is sure to spill over to the performances (and in my opinion, that's all you need for an audience to find music "accessible").

The second is that Barbara said she'd be on the lookout for pieces to study and live with, which means all those works that today get a premiere and then meet the filing cabinet would have an institutional path to follow to get many sets of post-premiere eyes and ears on them. That's good for everyone. And it also means that a player in City A excited about a piece could send the word out to pals in City B's orchestra. Wow, buzz in new orchestra music and it's not even a questionable PR campaign--it's real!

It's been my experience that tonal vs atonal is not an issue for most orchestra players. A piece tend to get written off by players when the piece's emotional statement doesn't match the forces or content, a sort of "Much ado about nothing" scenario. Players in my orchestra look for content first, not accessibility. This usually means having a compelling long range structure, with a selective use of loud and soft, and a realistic duration (esthetically) of a given texture.
Woehr, St. Louis

In using the term "accessible", I did not mean "tonal", but rather music that doesn't assault the audience. I do not enjoy dumbed-down music any more than the next musician.

As a reader of Adaptistration and as one concerned that professional orchestral musicians and composers in America don't communicate or socialize together enough, I wanted to contribute my concerns here about the socialization of young orchestral musicians in the United States. (First, let me thank boeu-sur-le toit and the others here who want orchestra members to be happy about their work, open to intellectual and spiritual challenge, and proud to be contributing to a creative field which potentially could have world-wide and long-term consequences for human happiness. And a special thank you to Drew who wants orchestral musicians to feel empowered and to be leaders both within the music field and within their communities.)

My comment will be about the National Orchestral Institute, a professional orchestral training institute in the region where I live, which was founded in 1987, and which attracts top national young orchestral talent and a stellar roster of conductors to their month long summer residencies, outside of Washington, D.C.

Last June, I wrote in my blog criticizing the Institute for conducting a June program -- under leading American conductors David Robertson, Roberto Minczuk, and Gerard Schwarz -- which programmed difficult classical works by Mozart, Brahms, Mahler, Strauss, Sibelius, Stravinsky, and Boulez ('Notations', under David Robertson) --but only one work by an American composer, Copland's 'Appalachian Spring'.

I asked in my cultural blog, last year, why this National Orchestral Institute wasn't including an American work on each of the three programs (with my hope that one or two of the works would be important, exciting, and superbly orchestrated works by living American composers).

Well, I received a very strong and articulate (though wrong) response to my blog from "Sarah", a participant in the NOI, who objected to my suggestion that American classical music should be part of the Institute's program. She said that she was an aspiring American orchestral musician who would soon be auditioning, under severe competitive pressures, and would be asked during auditions to play only from the most difficult European classical works. (I don't believe this is true.) She said that she and her fellow "best and brightest" young orchestral musicians simply did not have time for American classical music, given the huge treasure chest of the European classical past.

In responding to "Sarah", I mentioned that I thought it sad that she was not interested in what American classical composer Gabriela Lena Frank, whose work the San Francisco Symphony was performing in public parks that summer [2005], was doing, as one of her American musical peers. I also gave a link to Ms Frank [www.schirmer.com/composers/frank].

This June, the participants of the National Orchestral Institute -- this year under Michael Stern, Stefan Sanderling, and Eri Klas -- are performing NO American classical works by either past or living American composers. Instead, they are programming works by Weber, Wagner, Mahler, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Strauss, Hindemith, Prokofiev, and Britten. The NOI press materials trumpet the fact that participants have gone on to win positions with the Cleveland, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Israel Detroit, National, and MET Opera orchestras.

The residency program also is reported to include a workshop with Washington, D.C. choreographer (and MacArthur Fellow) Liz Lerman, a lecture by Mellon Foundation executive Catherine Maciariello, and a class on injury prevention by Leah Fleisher, daughter of distinguished pianist Leon Fleisher.

However, in all of this, there is not representation of a single past or living American classical composer! Could not the NOI program have included an American composer in residence and a premiere of a new or recent work of classical American music? Or how about three newer American classical works, one for each of the three Saturday programs -- along with three American classical composers in residence?

Thankfully, most American youth orchestras are programming works by American composers -- past and living -- on many of their programs. In my view, it is sad that young American orchestral talent graduate from youth orchestras and conservatory and university orchestras to backward-looking elite orchestral programs such as the National Orchestral Institute.

garthtrinkl wrote:

"Well, I received a very strong and articulate (though wrong) response to my blog from "Sarah", a participant in the NOI, who objected to my suggestion that American classical music should be part of the Institute's program. She said that she was an aspiring American orchestral musician who would soon be auditioning, under severe competitive pressures, and would be asked during auditions to play only from the most difficult European classical works. (I don't believe this is true.)

It is true. I've played a number of auditions and heard more than I can count. I can't recall one excerpt from music of a living composer, much less a living American composer.

On the other hand, the fact that the NOI doesn't play American music doesn't bother me nearly as much as does the existence of training orchestras, most which in my view are either ways of getting reasonable-quality orchestral performances without paying musicians or simply monuments to someone's ego. Participants in such ventures could spend their time far more productively either by practicing or playing chamber music.

Robert Levine

Regarding NOI, when I did my two summers there, I specifically remember playing Adams "Short Ride in a Fast Machine", along with several other American composers no longer living. A Harris Symphony was just one that happens to come to mind. NOI was a fine training orchestra, massive amount of rep. and really fine coachings. I just wonder if there would be more American music at these training orchestras if more American music was requested at auditions. Besides Copland 3, there is rarely anything but Romantic music with a splash of Classical. I know it can be tricky with rentals to include most American modern pieces, but I also know that in many auditions, the outcome would be vastly different. Just about anyone these days can pull off a decent Don Juan. But can just about anyone pull off the Daugherty Metropolis Symphony? Or what about Rouse Symphony # 2? Wouldn't it be interesting to change the formula audition one day?

Holly wrote:



That's a fantastic idea, Holly. The biggest argument against contemporary scores in training orchestras as well as university ensembles is that the performers aren't being properly prepared for the audition process. If performers were asked to prepare new works, it very well might have an effect on the overall programming paradigm we're living with today.

I play in a Canadian orchestra and, through a combination of fluke and my own persistence, have had a lot of involvement with programming during the more recent of my 27 years with the group. Here are a few observations:

New music has largely become a localised occurence. Orchestras tend to commission new pieces by composers from our city/ province(state)/ country. As an artistic organisation living in the present, we in principle want to play new or near-new music. In Canada we are expected by our (not as generous as you might think) government funders to play Canadian music, and since our audience has a limited tolerance for new and near-new music, most of the new and near-new music we play tends to be Canadian.

From what I can tell, this same situation occurs, more or less, in other countries where there are orchestras. Some years ago we had James DePreist as a guest conductor. He had recently moved from Quebec City to Oregon as Music Director, and had programmed for us a piece he knew by a Quebec composer, along with some Schumann and Nielsen. I asked him if he conducted Canadian music in the States. He shook his head and replied, "it's the same there with their composers." I find this sad, as music is a wonderful way to communicate between cultures, and I am frankly curious about the new music being played in Poland, Malaysia, Egypt, not to mention USA, England and so on. I see in the ASOL survey that Jennifer Higdon is getting a lot of performances in the USA, but I don't expect to play her pieces anytime soon, because that place on the program is occupied by a deserving Canadian piece. Same goes for Rouse, Harbison and the rest. May I suggest John Estacio's "Frenergy" or "Spring's Promise" or Allan Bell's "Percussion Concerto" or "An Elemental Lyric", some near-new Canadian music that has gone over well north of the border ?


Here are a few practical suggestions to add to Robert Levine's, not so much how to write, but how to increase chances for performance.

Write for an orchestra of basic instrumentation. For example, my orchestra has on full contract 2222 4231 timp+1 harp strings 12 9 8 8 6, (those violins work hard!), what I've read referred to as a "full", though not a "large" orchestra. My guess is that many "large" orchestras will slim down to "full" size for many youth and outreach performances. Anything over the above instrumentation will add to the cost and reduce the chances of a new or near-new work being performed.
When adding to that complement, following the standard additions found in the standard repertoire, eg. 3rd flute, 3rd trumpet, one more percussion etc. will help to economise. If extras are already hired for another, well-known piece, playing your new piece on the same program won't add to the cost for extra musicians, so if your piece happens to have the same instrumentation as "An American in Paris", and the right people know about it, it might have a chance on a program with that piece.

Write for an amateur SATB choir with professional orchestra but without soloist. Many orchestras have dedicated affiliate choirs, but putting them on stage often involves hiring vocal soloists for thousands of dollars each to sing less than five minutes, a considerable disincentive. Not too difficult choral parts please.

Write for children's choir with orchestra. Many orchestras seek to be more relevant to their communities. Involving children in performances brings all kinds of good will.

Good titles. "Short Ride on a Fast Machine" is a good piece with a fantastic title. I know a good composer who wrote a piece with a title sort of like "Our Victims", which will likely be his least performed work. Titles in foreign languages or using words that need to be looked up in the dictionary or worse yet, followed immediately by their translation in parentheses get no points from me. Sorry.

If you've got a winner, consider releasing it for sale, rather than rental. Though I wouldn't begrudge any composer or publisher their due, rental fees can tip the balance away from including a new work on a program, not to mention the hassle of having to order the music, mark bowings etc. There are a few works of Copland that are performed a lot, and I suspect one of the reasons is that the parts have been purchased and sit in the orchestra libraries ready to go at a moment's notice. To point out the irony of this, I quote from Oscar Levant's 1939 book, "A Smattering of Ignorance". "He (Copland) talked emphatically about the need for an organization, especially to impose a system of fees for performance rights on orchestras ... using American material. It seemed to me that the position of the American composer was decidedly a paradoxical one - to be demanding performance fees when conductors were reluctant to perform their works at all. But Copland insisted on the need for establishing a precedent, even at the risk of losing performances."

What about "near-new" music? I expect one reason for the special concern for "new" music is that composers get their biggest fee up front, for the commission. Fair enough. The result is that new pieces become a sort of disposable commodity. Once performed they're on their own, and it's on to the next commission. Keep flogging those old ones!

Modular compositions. If writing a longer, multi-movement work, try to design it so that sections that can be performed independently.





Robert Levine wrote on Day 1, "I suspect that these meme(perceived resistance of orchestra musicians to new music) keeps resurfacing from a desire to find an explanation for the relative paucity of new music on orchestral programs that avoids cutting ourselves with Occam's Razor. For the simplest explanation of that paucity is that audiences don't want to hear music that they don't know - or at least don't want to hear very much of it."

Once I'd looked up Occam's Razor, this became the most pertinent remark, I've read in this discussion so far. I'd like to add that there are a couple trends that are making matters worse, rather than better for new music. One is a trend in marketing orchestras, away from "pre-packaged" series and towards "create-your-own" series. Under the "pre-packaged" series framework there was the notion of offering the subscriber something called "balanced programming" whereby generous portions of Beethoven and Tchaikovsky would balance modest helpings of Bartok, Stravinsky (yes, those are still considered modern by many) and other inheritors of the classical music tradition. Under the "create-your-own" framework the balance goes out the window, and, pardon the metaphor, patrons are encouraged to load their plates with steak, a potato and gorge on desserts if they so wish. Using concert-by-concert ticketing data, the marketing department have no choice but to tell the artistic department to cut back on the vegetables, and heart disease is hereditary anyway, so who cares.

A related, artistically insidious development is concessionary musician contracts that include "profit-sharing" as a means of softening the blow. This can make the orchestra itself an active partner in moving towards the most populist, least adventurous programming choices as a means of building that possible, though usually illusory year-end bonus. I'd rather not be in the position of asking myself, "How much would I pay from my own pocket to play Ligeti's "Lontano"?".

The need for visionary, smart and strong Music Directors has never been greater.

I am happy that Holly was able to recall American works being performed during her past NOI summer training seasons. I hope that she enjoyed the experience of playing American orchestral scores by Roy Harris, John Adams, Christopher Rouse, Michael Daugherty, and others. [I also hope that she has played, in training orchestras, some works by living American -- and foreign -- woman composers.]

I also strongly agree with Rob that it will be a task for Drew and his colleagues, and for orchestral players, to try to work to influence the auditioning processes of American orchestras, which currently seem to force young aspiring American orchestral talents to alienate themselves, early in their careers, from their own American orchestral musical culture.

Let me quickly note that I was fortunate to play violin in an excellent youth orchestra which, over two years, performed works by the (then) living American composers Lou Harrison (Pacifika Rondo), Chou Wen-Chung (And the Fallen Petals), Samuel Barber (Violin Concerto), and Stephen Chambers [Talib Rasul Hakim] (Shapes for Orchestra) -- the last two works of which we toured to [West] Berlin, Germany, along with American works by Charles Ives and Ernest Bloch. My high school orchestra, at the same time, was playing major works by (then living) composers Aaron Copland (Appalachian Spring), Leonard Bernstein (West Side Story), and Benjamin Britten (War Requiem). I would hope that many American orchestral musicians, composers, conductors, and music administrators today would have had comparable happy exposures to the American orchestral music tradition early in their careers.

And yes, of course, the need for visionary, smart, and strong Music Directors has never been greater, as noted immediately above. I am perplexed, however, by Christian Woehr III's comment that "It is extremely rare, [in his opinion], to find a conductor who is good at both a Daugherty and a Brahms Serenade." If this is so extremely rare, then I feel that the American orchestral and compositional fields are in graver danger than I had ever imagined, and that American classical orchestral culture will need more than composers-in-residency programs. James Levine, Michael Tilson Thomas, Leonard Slatkin, James Conlon, Kent Nagano, David Robertson, Robert Spano, Marin Alsop, Michael Morgan, and at least a dozen others, strike me as not "rare" at all, and quite competent to conduct both Brahms and Elliott Carter, Ingram Marshall, or Gabriela Lena Frank.

What is missing, rather, is a thoughtful and orchestral musician empowering overall approach to reconciling the three bodies of orchestral music with which American orchestras are entrusted (major American orchestras play more early twentieth century music, than they play 19th century music, according to ASOL statistics): one, the classical and romantic repertoire; two, the repertoire of popular, early modernist, early 20th century works; and three, the emerging later 20th century and American repertoires up to and including world premieres by American and foreign composers. Conductors, I believe, should be hired -- by Boards and musician representatives -- on their ability intelligently to lead musicians and audiences in all three orchestral repertoires. [By the way, here is the link to Columbia University's recent "The Musical Tastes of Classical Music Critics"; I don't know whether a comparable study exists for American Orchestral Musicians and Conductors.

http://www.najp.org

Final thought. As professional orchestral musicians, composers, administrators, patrons, and funders look further, over time, into the issues of composers-in-residence, and orchestras and new American orchestral music, I hope they will look at some of the realities of the current orchestral world here in America. One of those realities is that often the largest orchestras do less for new and newer American orchestral music than do the more mid-size and smaller, more community-based orchestras, under the direction of younger, dynamic music directors, whose salaries have not yet pierced the $1 million (or tenth of a million dollar) barrier. In other words, at the same time composers-in-residence models are explored, keep in mind the orchestras that sometimes repeatedly win the ASCAP Awards for Adventurous programming. For example, while the San Francisco Symphony might not now have a composer in residence (past composers in residence, who come to mind, are George Perle and George Benjamin), its present Music Director is favoring foreign composers next season for world premiere performances (Robin Holloway and Kevin Volans) over American composers. At the same time, the more community-based (and less frustrating to play for?) orchestras in the San Francisco Bay Area, under innovative 'Magnum Opus/Meet the Composer' American composer commissioning, are leading up to a dozen new, and multiply-performed, American orchestral works of all stylistic voices. [Compare San Francisco Symphony world premieres over the past decade, to Magnum Opus world premieres over the past few years.]

http://www.meetthecomposer.org/magnumopus.htm

I am a student at the Manhattan School of Music, and this article could not be more true, if not sadly realistic. I find that my peers are uninterested in learning how to become practical musicians, failing to participate in the little opportunities the school offers to help them build real careers. From neglecting to sign up for the limited number of music-business related classes and counselling sessions on entering the job world, my peers make me think that they are either lazy or overly optimistic about their chances of finding work. Unfortunately, the lack of interest prevents the school from being able to run such programs, which means that concerned students have limited ways to gain the very skills which could help them keep their careers in music.

I think Christian has touched upon an important and fundamental truth. Until quite recently composers were also performers, and great composers tended to be, by all accounts, great performers (or at least had the chops to be great performers). It was prerequisite. Brahms could play Brahms. Beethoven, Mozart, Bach et all presented their own works to the world to much acclaim. Virtuosic ability it would seem, is indispensable, if history is any guide.

This should not surprise, for music is a whole person activity. Doing it well, including writing it well, requires a visceral "understanding"; an in the flesh and in the bones understanding, as well as a deep intellectual understanding, and also the part we often weakly refer to as the "emotional" understanding e.g. "...is the piece happy or sad?". A more high-falutin' term might be the "emotional-spiritual" understanding e.g. "is the piece joyous or tragic...? ...does the piece allude to the existential dilemma of humankind? ... does the piece offer a glimpse of redemption?, etc. These types of understanding (and others no doubt) combine in the rare few to form what might be characterized as a fully "human" understanding of music. A lack of any of these is bound, I would submit, to lead to mediocrity at best.

The 20th century experiment with music as a purely intellectual/conceptual activity went nowhere. When the highest compliment a composer's work receives is that it is "interesting", (s)he should reconsider. That a listener might remember elements of a composition well enough to physically enjoy them (tapping of toes) or re-produce them as (s)he leaves the hall (whistling) is seen as the hallmark of an insult to the quality of the piece (if the piece appeals in such an unimportant and base manner it must be trivial), the train is plainly off the rails. There is nothing base nor trivial about engaging the whole listener, body, mind and soul. Quite the contrary. Engaging the whole listener is the whole point. Anything less than this trivializes, actually.

Christian's point that the performer is the first audience so important. If composers want their work to succeed in the world, the first order of business is to ensure that musicians want to play it. More than once. Preferably all the time, for the rest of their lives (or at least so often that they eventually burn out on it, the way some can burn out after the 75th performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony; when I feel this way about the Sixth and about Brahms' Second, I'll know it's time to hang up the skates). Now every musician has his/her favorite few criteria for placing a piece in the category of "That was so fun. Let's do it again!", but some common ones that come to mind are beautiful melody (groan), "architectural" integrity (formal coherence?) maybe, ingenious counterpoint, compelling-or-at-least-convincing meter and rhythm, general craftsmanship (craftspersonship?), a true understanding of not only what's possible on the instrument(s) ("gee, I didn't know the 'cello could make that terrible noise but since it can I'd better write it in") but also of what's fun to do on the instrument (things that "lie well", are easy to play but sound hard, etc.). Lots of possibilities.

Someone ( a composer) earlier in the forum mentioned that she was sometimes surprised and affronted by musicians who are angry at much modern music and many modern composers. This is so common as to be banal, if it weren't so genuinely uncomfortable and distressing for all concerned. I have been angry. I will be again, no doubt, and do not look forward to it. Thankfully, I am quite cheery at the moment.

Nevertheless, anger (ignorant) at composers is where the old Rite of Spring Premiere Anecdote always comes into play in this discussion. Sure people were angry, but then, after a while, they realized Stravinski's genius and were suitably chastened and humbled, silly quaint non-composer, non-genius folk.

Whatever merit there ever may have been to that anecdote, (less, I suspect than myth would have it) the above is not a very useful attitude either when dealing with performers or writing for them, but it is one that is all too often evident. So there is, amongst many orchestral musicians, a reactive/defensive posture that has become established over many decades and has become something of a cultural bias, to wit;
"our musical likes and dislikes are not only disregarded, but are in fact held in patronizing contempt by people who imagine themselves to be cleverer than us and who think that we might one day, if we are very lucky, understand their brilliance, but that we might not, poor us, and that's o.k. too."

If I might be so bold as to offer two small pieces of advice to composers they would be:

1) Try to find out what it is that musicians like to play (and be careful of the too polite ones who say they like something that they really don't), and then write it, and 2) be able to play it yourself, at the keyboard preferably (nothing cooler than someone who can convincingly render a big orchestral score).

Tony Christie
Assistant Principal Cello
Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony

Is there really such an enormous divide between new music and not-new music? As one of Lisa's percussionist sub-group, I may have a built in bias to new music, but honestly I have never taken an interest in a piece because solely because it was new - the only criteria I have used is whether or not it resonates with me. Now where it gets sticky is that different things will resonate with different people. So choosing what to program for the orchestra in the new music arena becomes a darn near impossible task. I also have never really taken notice of the nationality of the pieces that interest me or not, only whether they sound good or not! (Disclosure: the current composers whose music I am working on: Libby Larsen, Per Norgard, Alejandro Vinao. UN here I come!)

Lisa also said about my sub-group -

Percussionists, too - that special sub-group among orchestra musicians - are often eager to make these connections. Is this because the percussion repertoire is uniquely weighted towards the recent and the modern? Surely percussionists' audition repertoire has a higher American and contemporary representation than the list to which "Sarah" (of NOI) refers.

As much as I would like to say I am undertaking the noble cause of making connections, it really is mostly out of necessity, as the field of percussion, compared to its orchestral brethren, is still very much in the developmental stages. So, much of the dialogue between composer and percussionist is simply a nuts and bolts discussion of how to make a certain sound. Beyond that, I personally like a lot of time to get a good grasp on the piece (or my particular part in it) myself before I get the composer involved. Christian's comment that deep inside every instrumentalist must live a composer (I paraphrase horribly here) makes me wonder as I can't see myself as a composer. More accurately, I should say the thing I bet I would like most about being a composer is releasing it into the wild to be interpreted by others, without my input. I have yet to hear a real life composer echo this sentiment.

About auditions: Percussion audition repertoire certainly by comparison has more American and contemporary components. The main culprits: Gershwin (need I hum Porgy and Bess?) Copland, Schuman (one N, not two, i.e. William). Timpani lists are largely devoid of such examples, although a current audition list includes Naïve and Sentimental Music by John Adams.

There has been some discussion of auditions to help mew music get into the system more. This seems to me to be putting the horse before the cart. New music simply requires a commitment from all relevant parties within the organization. In years past, when the conductor was the big cheese (bigger than today at least), he/she could simply program new pieces. With the three part system we have today, plus more emphasis on the bottom line, getting the new stuff in takes more work. Too often, orchestras fall victim to tokenism, bringing new music to audiences the way a parent brings brussel sprouts to their kids. Like it or not, orchestras have to "want" to play new music, or it is bound to fail. Furthermore, for the sake of the audience, they should revisit some of those works that hold promise again, so that the audience can get close to the comfort level they get with Beethoven, or at least Sibelius.

Final disclosure: I was at NOI many years ago - played Copland Third Symphony. One of my favorite performances ever.

Chris Woehr wrote:

"Molly Sheridan's observation on the absolute necessity of getting a recording of a premiere in order to have any hope of a future life for the piece is of course right on the button in this day and age. I am hoping that, as the new AFM Internet Agreement is ratified and put into place in American orchestras, this will begin to be a non-issue. Orchestras are voting this summer, it comes recommended by the Union (correct me Robert!), and promises to open up a whole new world of opportunity and flexibility."

You asked for a correction, so here goes. What's been negotiated and is being recommended by the AFM is actually a new agreement to cover the production of CDs by orchestras; in essence replacing the old Radio-to-Noncommercial Agreement. While this is a good thing, it doesn't address the problem in the way Chris hopes. The good news is that there is already an Internet Agreement in place and being used that could (and does) address the problem. While we in Milwaukee have used it to place selected performances from radio broadcasts on iTunes for sale, the agreement could also be used by any signatory orchestra to place performances recorded in concert on their own website, whether for sale or for free. Obviously there's still some production expense associated with that, but it's potentially quite small. We're starting our own online store in Milwaukee; it's not hard to do. Making content available for free download is technically even easier.

Robert Levine

Hey, thanks for the kind words re my last post. And no. You are not rambling. Rather, the total human engagement of your bike ride/opera performance seems to have even furthe enhanced your brilliance! (This is a good time to formally establish the Woehr/Christie Mutual Admiration Society. :-)

Two more tiny thoughts to add:

1) Revise my advice to composers that they should seek to write that which other players like to play, to read;

"Write that which you yourself enjoy playing, and can play brilliantly".

If this rule is followed it is almost inevitable that other musicians will also enjoy performing it, and since it almost always follows that audiences always respond to musician's pleasure in performance, you will have a hit. Nothing wrong with a hit. (I would call the Rite of Spring a hit, but it should perhaps be the demarkation threshold for the use of that term. I bet Stravinski just loved banging out a keyboard reduction, too.)

2) Notwithstanding twentieth century explorations of arcane systems of composition (and I include dodecaphony in this category, as well as the aliatoric paths followed... or paradoxically *not followed*, as it were), successful music is always constructed within parameters of formal systems to which there can more or less readily be developed in listeners a strongly intuitive understanding. Tonic-dominant-tonic progressions, slow-fast-slow organizations of time, regular duple and triple meters, etc., being the simplest examples of these, I suppose. As the formal systems employed become more complex, and less easily grasped by ordinary people potential audience will dwindle. This is why simple pop songs are more popular than some Bach fugues, which are in turn more popular than Beethoven's Grosse Fugue, which still eclipses (in terms of numbers of devotees) the work of the "Second Vienese School".

While it is probably true that there are some very consumate musicians and listeners who are able to develop a strongly intuitive grasp of Twelve Tone music and truly "groove" on it in the whole person way (after all, they can't all be lying can thay?) that mere mortals (such as myself, I confess) am not. Glenn Gould comes to mind. I'm pretty sure he sincerely dug Webern et al deep in his gut. Probably some of you reading this blather do too. Possibly some of you try hard to feel this way and imagine sometimes that you are able to while at other times, you quietly admit to yourselves that you have no clue. Possibly?

There is tons of scope for creativity within even the most constraining and fairly simple formal system. Mozart occasionally stretched the Sonata Allegro form but was quite content not to feel he had to explode it. Pushing the envelope requires an envelope to push.

I'm not suggesting that composers need to re-hash historic formal systems, (though it's a great excercise and results can be valuable... See Fritz Kreisler, Igor Stravinski, all the reconstructors of unfinished works by the masters, etc.) but whatever system you choose, make sure that some critical mass of folks out there can readily "get" it without reading pages of foot notes etc.

What a refreshing look at contemporary music! I laughed a good bit at your frankness. Reminded me of my own orchestra and many others I have worked with. I hope there is some change in the future, someone has to break this mold, thanks for shinning some light on the issues.

Hi
Enjoying the discussion, but speaking of unplayed, underperformed pieces, do any of you..discussion panel) know of any organization staging, singing, or performing the orchestra music from the spanish zarzuela?

It should be noted that this is different for opera companies. In opera, a GM or GD functions somewhat like a German Intendant-wielding significant artistic control in addition to financial managment and adminstrative oversight.

gibarian has a very good point. In fact, the General Director title and duties aren't limited to operas. The Grant Park Music Festival (one of Polyphonic.org's Orchestra Spotlight ensembles and a member of ICSOM) uses a similar structure. You can read about their General Director, James Palermo, and his duties and responsibilities here .

This forum is so helpful!! What an education to be able to reflect on the passion-filled tirades of colleagues. In this case, I could begin to imagine all the injustice Chris and his colleagues at SSD must have seen over time and how incongruent it all must feel given this great art which is our life's work.

I agree 100% in asking why our field, grounded on excellence and committment, allows the recycling of failed administrators and handsomely compensates absence many conductors.

At the same time, comments like the following imply an air of entitlement which strikes me as uncharitable at best and troubling at worst.





Obviously, it takes more than musicians to deliver the culture. More importantly, "their community" should be "our community" as well. If it is not, if we don't feel it has to be, why should the community support us beyond the tickets they choose to buy?

Hi Jim, I've never heard of the PEAK program you mentioned. Perhaps in your next post you could expand upon that? Yvonne

See Jim's Day 2 post for an explanation of the PEAK program. Ann Drinan

I love Eric's word imagery of "...playing great music at audiences..". Although the intention is to share, it accurately describes how so many people feel; just the physical set-up and the one-sideness of the exchange alone are daunting. Living in that feeling may help us develop better ways to share "main stage" as well as "outreach" performances.

OK, so there is the premise that orchestras need to hire and promote minority players and soloists and perform work by minority composers. I agree completely with the caveat that such works and performers be of near-equal quality with anything else an orchestra can offer.

On the issue of composers, ALL minority composers for orchestral works fit in the category of "modern" or "contemporary" music. It's difficult enough to promote this music even if it is accessible. National giving statistics indicate minorities give less than non-minorities of equivalent socio-economic backgrounds. I hate to say it, but outreach to minorities will have no or little effect on the bottom line. Unless you do Beethoven and Sibelius, the nice fluffy white haired ladies won't pull out their checkbooks.

The central problem here is with the funding model. American orchestras survive on at least 50% individual donations: these donations come from non-minorities. In most regional orchestras, the donations are given to raise property values (look: we have culture here).

Only a public (or private foundation) funding model with multi-year funding commitments reaching a significant budgetary percentage will give orchestras the security to take the risk of including contemporary music (the only large body of quality music for orchestra by minority composers) on their programs.

I particularly love your observation that re-connecting with a group you've already visited is very important. I'd love to hear more about how that works.

[Read Genevieve's reply in her Day 3 post. Ann Drinan]

I think you've touched on a key point, Aaron, when you say that "engaging the community is an afterthought" in many orchestras...this is certainly a topic that deserves more discussion.

Hi Yvonne. I love your comments about the World Cup games, and the comparison to orchestra concerts. Definitely worthy of further exploration!"

See Sarah's full comment about Yvonne's post in her Day 2 statement. Ann Drinan

This is so true. It would be like complaining that not enough middle-aged adults these days are engaged in the beauty that is skateboarding.


Although celebrating the current symphonic canon is an important and comfortable goal, why shouldn't the field be responsive to the changing composition and interests of our audience and musicians? The first orchestras in America were started to satisfy the preferences of a tiny group of stakeholders (mainly immigrant musicians from Europe). Their sense of nostalgia and prestige dictated what music was played. However, today we proport to serve a much larger group of stakeholders,and depend on that larger group for survival. Equally important, more great music from different places is available. I would suggest that this requires an awareness of the community's evolution and a responsiveness to its expanding musical palette.

Read Leonard Slatkin's reply in his Day 2 post . Ann Drinan

I appreciate the thoughtful questioning in Sarah`s remarks, and I`d like to extend that into the area of adult education.

When one speaks with regular concert-goers, it is not always the case that they have had a love of classical music since childhood, nurtured by the sorts of activities we offer to children. Often it happens much later, as the result of some chance exposure to great music, or through relationships with music lovers.

I am wondering if anyone has looked, more or less methodically, at cities with both orchestras and universities/colleges and focused on the health of "Music Appreciation" as part of the liberal arts curriculum. This may be related to the health of the liberal arts curriculum overall. Is there a healthy "ecology" encompassing the universities/colleges, their music departments and the orchestras that are nurturing an interest in symphonic music among young audiences ?

Is this something that orchestras and their musicians should/can be actively promoting ?

Are there examples out there you could refer me/us to?

Thanks, Tom Mirhady, Calgary

Thanks for your comments, Tom.

I've been urging my own orchestra (Hartford Symphony) for years to get involved in music adult education through our local small liberal arts colleges -- take our lecture/concert programs on the road around the state to smaller colleges that can't afford a large music department. I think it's time for this to happen nationally!

We invite you to send us short descriptions of programs that have worked in your orchestra that have successfully engaged your community. And please consider writing an article for us -- we hope to document lots of outreach/educational programs that really made a difference.

Outreach vs. Community Engagement: I agree, that the terms can be troubling. How the efforts feel when enacted seems more important to me.

I'm reminded of a favorite definition of community engagement, namely "the process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting the well-being of those people."

To what extent would or should this definition describe our individual orchestra's efforts? An interesting fact is that this definition is taken from the medical field, specifically from the Atlanta-based Center's for Disease Control.

If you don't mind, Yvonne, I'd like to add what I know about that situation, since I know the parties very well.

One big reason the Kennedy Center/NSO's Summer Music Insitute has such a high black and latino involvment is directly due to its Young Artist of Color Program led by Dr. Leon Neal. He is a violist in the Washington National Opera/Kennedy Center Opera House and is a consultant to the Institute.

In 1993, James Wolfensohn, the chair of the board at the Kennedy Center, asked Dr. Neal to recruit minority students to apply to for the Summer Music Institute. He works directly with Carole, pre-screens applications, and personally visits programs around the country, including the Music Advancement Program and Pre-College Division at Juilliard, which is where I met him.

In fact, I know a few students who won't have known, let alone auditioned and won the opportunity to participate in the Institute, without his efforts.

I believe Aaron raises an interesting point regarding the use of the screen in auditions and the possiblity that race should be considered an acceptable parameter to consider when filling an open position. Perception is the name of the game. Even though orchestras are not purposely excluding minorities from their ranks, when one looks around and sees that the level of diversity in the orchestra trails behind that of every other major governmental, public, and cultural institution in town, it creates an impression that can have effects ranging from a young child being discouraged from studying music to a city council denying an important grant.

But while we are considering the removal of the screen, could it also be time to consider including a musician's community outreach, educational, and public presentation skills and experiences as acceptable criterion for a more well-balanced audition process? As orchestras perform less subscription concerts and more community outreach activities, and donors and funding sources increasingly look for proof of the goodwill engendered and positive results achieved by education and community programs, the importance of hiring musicians who have proven credentials as both artists and community engagers will only increase.

What does everyone else think? Can orchestras maintain the highest levels or artistic standards while also building a membership of individuals who can be effective agents for music in our communities? Is a new approach to the audition process the way to do that? Is the answer in better and more frequent training sessions that teach musicians to be as successful out in the streets as they are on the stage? Or do orchestras need to hire more properly trained and effective administrators to be the ambassadors to the community who use the musicians as secondary allies in the cause?

Scott Harrison

Terrific ideas, Charles! These are the sorts of innovative ideas I was hoping this forum would generate...Has the Detroit Symphony been able to put these programs into place (such as the Skillman that you mentioned)?

I think smaller orchestras are more in touch with their communities because the entire community's funding sources are more limited.

Read Charles' reply in his Day 3 post.

Thanks, Jim.

Do you know if there have been similar grants elsewhere in the country?

Read Jim's reply in his Day 3 post.

I was drawn to Yvonne's comparison between the efforts to educate, in real time, viewers watching any sporting event on television. We're mulling around ideas about how to do something similar at a concert this fall with the Utah Symphony.

We're calling it Casual Thursday. It will be a performance of a Masterworks subscription concert, minus one of the pieces, to allow more time for talk. The current plan is to have the conductor and guest artist engage in real conversation, possibly including some members of the orchestra. But this is still us talking to the audience.

What we're also hoping to do is find a way to let the audience contact us with their questions or comments, to which we can respond directly, in real time, from the stage. We may solicit the submission of questions via e-mail prior to the concert. But we're also considering ways the audience can submit questions/comments during intermission. We might have a few computer terminals set up in the lobby. We may invite the audience to use text messaging. We haven't decided. It will mean that we have a short space of time to receive, screen, and select audience inquiries to which the performers can respond after intermission.

We would appreciate knowing if other orchestras have tried anything like this. Or if anyone has any thoughts and reactions about it.

In reply to BHawkins:
Though I said I applaud sporting events' ability to educate in "real time", I don't think it works quite the same way for music events, largely because we want the audience to listen to what we're playing, i.e. you can't broadcast an announcement while the orchestra is playing or the audience won't hear half of what's being played. I've experimented quite a bit in my programs outside the orchestra with letting the audience ask questions during programs and I was stunned to discover that many people in the audience don't like it. They came to the performance to hear either the music, or the "expert", and many of them don't want to hear other opinions.

If you try to set up a situation where 1000 people are asking questions all at once, it's unworkable. The idea that you mentioned about setting up terminals in the lobby, or using text messages to ask questions would need to be carefully thought through so that at no point is the audience forced to wait for results. I think that would be deadly. In my experience, if you have more than approx 300 people in a room, it becomes more and more difficult to take questions. You can talk before the performance, then play the piece, and afterwards have a Q&A session for those who want to ask questions--Leonard Slatkin does this several times a year and audiences love it. Out of maybe 1500 people who come to the concert, approx 500-600 will linger to ask questions and hear the answers.

Thanks, Aaron. I was hoping Carole would have time to join the discussion, but it's good that you were able to outline the procedure. I've been so impressed with all the students at the Summer Music Institute, and I know it's true that a lot of them wouldn't have been there going through the "usual" procedures, if only because they didn't know about them.

A college degree, such as Bachelor of Music, offered at most universities and conservatories, is essentially a degree in philosophy. It is a degree that, at its essence, is offered to those who demonstrate skills necessary to egage in critical thought, and understanding of theoretical concepts and ability to implement them.

What the author proposes is that conservatories offer a degree in craftsmanship. I am all for it, but let's not mistake (or equate) a Diploma (which is what it would become) with a Bachelors or Masters degree. In fact, students of other subjects are NOT taught how to perform their jobs after graduation, but are imparted abilities to critically assess and implement theoretical knowledge. Ability to negotiate contracts, survival in work politics, and the like, are skills learned on the job.

I am especially offended by the author's comment regarding uselessness of music analytical skills. If conservatories are to produce little machines, one after another, that can survive playing in an orchestra, under someone else's guidance and without ever having to employ their musical (and I don't mean performance) brain, then let us not offer BMs and MMs at that level. Let us simply offer Diplomas, or Certificates of Completion. Otherwise, it is downright insulting that someone whose higher education consisted of only learning "on the job" skills would have a degree equivalent to a physicist or a mathematician.

Mr. Burke,
Your comments are on the money and I commend you for your creative concepts. As public funding for our schools are whittled away, more and more arts education, along with other non-traditional academics (anything but the three R's) suffer. The void must be backfilled by those who have the passionate interest to maintain its vibrancy. One challenge we recently faced with our local orchestra had to do with Union contracts, which "bankrupt" a creative idea from going forward. Sometimes, we must ask ourselves whether the strict guidelines established when unions were created some fifty years ago are still relevant in today's high tech, fast moving, global societies. I would challenge all musicians to look at the world as it really is and not as how they would like it to look, then "Go do the right things for the right reasons."

Jon, so good to read your comments! Empowering the audience's creativity is exactly what the Very Young Composers Program is all about. Orchestras have such a powerful, but often under-utilized platform with which to encourage others to dream and to do. The look of pride and ownership on those kids faces as they sit on the stage at Avery Fisher Hall while you and your colleagues play their notes is quite powerful.

If in fact, as the author of the foregoing comment states, conservatories and universities offer the Bachelor of Music degree as "...a degree in philosophy," and for "those who demonstrate skills necessary to engage in critical thought, and understanding of theoretical concepts and ability to implement them," then I should have entitled my article "The Bachelor of Music Degree-The Untold Story of What Universities and Conservatories Don't Want You To Know."

I went to the conservatory that I attended to get prepared to get a job, as did most of my classmates. When I taught music courses on the collegiate level, my students felt likewise. If what the author states is universal truth (which I do not believe it is), I know a lot of professional musicians, including myself, my classmates, and my students, who were mislead and cheated in their education.

Skills in negotiating contracts, survival in work politics, and all the other items I listed in my article, can and should be taught in the classroom to those seeking to enter the professional symphonic performance field. To the extent that we have been allowed to do so, staff and leadership of the AFM Symphonic Services Division have been doing so for orchestra musicians for over twenty years. The problem remains that the lack of such university/conservatory training has and is creating serious problems for professionals in this industry.

In my article I did not propose a systemic trashing of music analysis courses, but to me it is an issue of priorities. Perhaps the solution is to offer more elective courses, and with the help of career counseling, allow students to custom design their curriculum to fit their needs and interests. I found music analysis of symphonic works to be quite important and useful, but as a string bassist the analysis of a Bartok String Quartet was not at the top of my list. My issue was and remains what I was not taught in my conservatory.

What I find particularly offensive is the paternalistic attitude of "we know what is best for our students," and dismissal of feedback from field professionals and the students themselves. It seems to me that the key is in offering course options. Whether this comment author likes it or not, conservatories and universities are in the business of career preparation, and there is a real world out there.

Perhaps Mr. Kahn misunderstood my complaints. The issue that I take up is not that the proposed curriculum should not be offered at a conservatory level. As a matter of fact, I think that conservatories would be the best place to offer such courses (I myself received both conservatory and university education). They are, after all (and I'm not arguing with that) places to "attend to get prepared to get a job." A very specific kind of job, if one is a performer.

What I have a problem with, as well as many other musicians and academics with whom I've spoken regarding this very matter, is to call such a degree "Bachelors of Music." As an orchestra player, I understand the frustrations resulting from feeling unprepared for the "real world." But as an academic, I find it degrading that someone who goes through 4 years of essentially nothing but job preparation would receive the same degree as someone like a physicist or a biologist, who spend their undergraduate years engrossed in theoretical and critical mindwork.

Yes, someone who wants to be an orchestral musician should have the option of taking classes that will directly impact their success in the field. Absolutely. But let's call it what it is: a trade, not an academic endeavor. And as such, let us reconsider equating such work with that of academics. I don't oppose the curriculum changes proposed by Mr. Kahn; I merely ask that we don't include them under the umbrella of a Bachelors degree. Offering Diplomas or Certificates will not diminish the level of instruction one can receive from a conservatory. If anything, it will prevent students from feeling "mislead and cheated" in their education.

Perhaps, perhaps not. My alma mater (which is a major conservatory) did not offer the Artist's Diploma or equivalent, so orchestral performance majors had only one choice; the Bachelor of Music Degree.

I do not believe we are in disagreement on one issue. The university/conservatory environment should be broad enough to address the needs of those who want career preparation, academic study and enrichment, scholarly research, and all the variations thereof. But at present, how many conservatories/universities distinguish curriculums as you have suggested? Yes, some major schools offer the Artist's Diploma or similar, but I am unaware of Artist Diploma curriculums that includes complete courses as I have suggested in my article.

Speaking for myself, during my undergraduate days the emphasis was clearly get the degree, get a job. In later years as a professional I would have been very receptive to enrichment course work that would have revisited and emphasized the "art" and structure, because if one's sole musical outlet is being a cog in the orchestra machine it can and does dampen or even eradicate creativity. As we all know, in an orchestra we follow someone else's creativity, not our own, and that can be yet another source of much frustration for musicians, if ignored.

Prior to medical school, some may get an undergraduate degree in Biology. But because he/she may thereafter pursue a career as a physician, surgeon, etc., does that therefore "degrade" those
who wanted the Biology degree in and of itself for solely academic reasons? I don't think so. Then I fail to understand why the future symphonic performers who seeks solely career preparation in the Bachelor of Music program or whatever it is called, is degrading those who only want academic pursuit? I would argue that there is not only room for both, but others as well, through the process of elective course options.

With regard to williammelver's comment I would be interested to know more about exactly which provisions within union contracts bankrupt "creative ideas." I would also be interested to know exactly who williammelver believes comprises the unions if not the orchestra musicians themselves. Does this mean he's singling out orchestra musicians as the root of his perceived problems?

I also wonder if he's ever bothered to talk to his local symphony's players committee or local union president - or even send them a letter - expressing his concerns. What is this world reality williammelver is referring to and what exactly he considers is "the right thing."

Universally condemning unions - i.e., orchestra musicians - as the source for keeping what he believes are "creative ideas" from coming to fruition is ignorant at best and deliberately injurious at worst. Personally, I don't think my orchestra should be spending as much on participating in public school music initiatives as we are. We need audience members now and I think the money would be better spent if it were directed toward improving our marketing.

Yes, there's always the argument that we want an audience for tomorrow but I've been doing this for a long time and I always remember being a part of a symphony that had education programs that reached out to local public schools. If those programs really build our audience for tomorrow why didn't those initiatives from 20 years ago build our audience for today? Music critic, Greg Sandow put it better than I can in something he wrote awhile back at his blog:

Your earlier post was so inspiring, Jon, about going into a school and letting kids create a piece of music. However, I know from personal experience that what you make sound so fundamental and joyful needs a VERY gifted teacher to make it happen. Not all of us possess that special skill (and I don't know whether Jon's innate ability can be taught to another adult...)

[Read Jon's reply to Yvonne in his Day 4 post. Read Sarah's reply to Yvonne's comment in her Day 4 post.]

I look forward to hearing about this project 5-10 years from now, and whether other organizations will follow suit.

I see that Mr. Kahn and I are both night owls.

I agree that, to a point, universities and conservatories should offer more variety in coursework, including these you suggest in your article. As a matter of fact, I applaud your idea of requiring music majors to have a minor outside of their field. If I'm not mistaken, many universities already have such a requirement. However, there are still some problems that I see.

First, your comparison of music degrees to Biology is somewhat misleading. While it is true that students with such a degree can go on to pursue diverse sub-fields, undergraduate education is the same regardless of whether they want to be doctors (like my wife) or researchers (like my parents) or whatever. And such undergraduate education consists mainly of learning a broad spectrum of skills and subjects. While some "on the job" skills are taught, emphasis is placed on enabling students to choose from a variety of fields after graduation. In music, I find that seldom do university students really embark on career paths that they chose in their undergrad, and in my opinion it is our duty as educators to impart on them a broad understanding of musicianship in order to keep their options open. On the other hand, conservatory students are generally more likely to continue in directions they've chosen at the onset of their education. Therefore it seems more feasable to include your proposed curriculum in conservatories but not in universities.

Secondly, compared to university undergraduate curricula, conservatory students are required to take only a minimal amount of courses outside of their field. This can also pave a way for conservatories to create greater diversity in courses such as leadership and management skills, contracts, copyright law, etc. etc. But at the same time, a greater division should be created between those who receive conservatory training and those from universities. I mean that in terms of the type of degree received, and the type of work such a degree entitles its recepient to pursue. In general, I think that there should be a distinction between those who receive broad, humanistic education (universities) and those whose education is focused (conservatories).

For some time now I have been a proponent of a separation between the performance and the academic sides of music (as seen at Yale, for example). It does seem pointless for a violinist to be studying cellular biology when all she wants to do is play in an orchestra. Why not give her ample time to practice excerpts, play in high quality orchestras, and take real-life-based courses in orchestral management, for example? I'm all for it. But such education should not exist in a university setting, where the philosophy is to foster all-encompassing education, where ability to think critically and process theoretical information has traditionally received more emphasis than acquiring job training.

If somewhat cynical and dark, my last point is that such a separation of degrees will further focus the overall mission of conservatories, creating better skilled players, which might in turn lead to a decrease in the number of people who are seriously fighting for jobs. Let's not fool ourselves: good orchestra gigs are few and far between, and only the best players get them. Perhaps orchestras should require that newly-arrived players hold "orchestral performance" degrees from conservatories. With a dwindling number of orchestras, and diminishing audience support for the ones that still exist, this reduction in the number of people able to win auditions will force students to think twice before embarking on a career as orchestral musicians. Okay, that was a bitter digression, so I leave that discussion for another day.

Yvonne, what a wonderful perspective you get to have on the IMAG concerts! Is there a way to share what you learned with your orchestra colleagues, including the staff? It sounds like the "technician conversation" could be fertile ground for learning about how better to share the music. A focus group of individuals like this could be quite revealing.

A project like this, which directly benefits the city's entire population with a high school, exemplifies a type of cultural leadership orchestras can provide. Have you noticed an increased desire for and committment to partnership from the Detroit Public Schools and others in the area because of this?

Thank you Ann and Yvonne for putting together this virtual discussion. Thank you to all who have contributed to this worthwhile discussion. Questions raised are so very important. Seattle Symphony's Community Engagement program, ACCESS (Artistic & Cultural Community Engagement with the Seattle Symphony) is a recent recipient of ASOL & MetLife Foundation best practices award. Community partnerships are at the heart of this program: Seattle School District, Washington Music Educators Association, Viva La Musica, Langston Hughes Cultural Arts Center, Youngstown Cultural Arts Center, and Seattle Symphony Community Engagement Council, a fluid inclusive think tank. As James Copenhaver in his Day 1 post described, "community engagement reflects a two-way interactive dialogue." It is adaptive learning situation. A renewable, sustainable development of a diverse musical eco-system of which the symphony is integrated into the daily musical lives of its community. Perhaps even a variant of the "cultural incubator" that Charles Burke describes. Community engagment will look different for each project, every year as resources and "what is important" to our communities shift. However, there seems to be ever deepening ties that bind us to each other.

Yvonne,
I'm excited to learn about the survey of the NSO orchestra musicians' work in the community. The LA Phil implemented this summer a similar survey with the following goals in mind:

1. To acknowledge the incredible depth and scope of work that LA Phil musicians do in schools and communities.

2. To share this information internally with musicians and staff, and externally with funders and community partners, with the intention of making the LA Phil's impact in the community visible.

3. To learn more about LA Phil musicians and to use this information as a tool to help identify musicians to work on new and expanding Education programs. Staff will be able to see musicians' personal passions and where official Education programs overlap with musicians' self-motivated work in the community.

As individuals invested in arts education, specifically orchestra education, it is our job to make our work visible and transparent to all stakeholders. Especially as we begin to innovate in our field and experiment with new learning formats and creative programs, we need to know more about our organizations, specifically the heart and soul of orchestras - our musicians. I wanted to share that as part of Mellon's Orchestra Forum, EmcArts is developing a survey for participating orchestras in order to ascertain information about musicians' careers, which may provide new level of useful information for the field. Results of the survey will likely be available in the early spring of 2007.

It's thrilling to see the ways in which orchestras are beginning to make their work/art form more visible through marketing and programming, in, as Philadelphia so wonderfully says, "raising the invisible curtain," or bridging the space between the artistry on stage and the audience. By taking the time to crack open our art form for people through genuine investigation, whether through getting to know orchestra musicians better, sharing the creative process of a composer, or adding context to music in live programming, we are helping to develop the intellectual intimacy and emotional connection that audience members or potential audience members long for. I can't say if this translates to increased ticket sales, but I am quite interested in seeing the impact of this kind of approach over time.

Is there a direct correlation between diversity in school & youth symphony training orchestras and our audiences? What about musical experiences in the home and primary grades and participation in school & youth symphonies? Any thoughts on this?

I'm really happy to see that another orchestra is trying this idea too. May I add one more goal for you? "Identifying and using contacts that musicians have already made." All of us musicians have many, many contacts in our communities, whether they are parents of students we are teaching, or whether they are teachers at our child's school, or the head of music at the church where we played a recital ... seems to me that orchestras would want to reach out to those contacts in the community first, before setting up a new program.

Yvonne - I would love to see IMAG in action. The NAC was a pioneer in Canada in using what we call our NACOTRON - a giant screen flying on top of the orchestra that, with the help of five cameramen, captures the concerts in much the same way as you've described. Over 15 years ago, we struck up a wonderful community partnership with our local television provider - Rogers. They have done a stellar job for us and have contributed to the success of our Young People's Concert Series. We hire a script assistant who gets the score ahead of time and directs the cues with the cameramen during the concert. The results have been terrific.

The point that I'd like to make about the NACOTRON and our Young People's Concerts is that not only do they engage the children - but also their parents. The NACOTRON creates a safe space where parents who may not have had much exposure to classical music learn to appreciate the various instruments of the orchestra and the technical dexterity required of the musicians. The "up close and personal" feel to the concerts achieved through the NACOTRON helps to break down the barriers between musicians and audiences members.

Like many orchestras, we have learned that once our young audience graduates - we often lose their parents who are in the 30-40 age demographic we hope to cultivate. This year, we are going to offer a "YPC parent club" initiation package to other concerts at the NAC that we have carefully chosen. These concerts will be more accessible with talk-backs at intermission and meet and greets with musicians that we hope will continue to keep these parents engaged with classical music. We will also lower the ticket prices to acknowledge their babysitting costs. We'll let you know how it works.

Jon - I love the idea of "letting the community teach us." I would be interested in knowing more about the musical gems you've inspired. So many of us have programs where we encourage creativity amongst novice composers - others of us commission young composers - and every now and again a really interesting work is created. Sadly, they usually get one reading. I would be interested in seeing the creation of a section - perhaps through Polyphonic - of works by young composers that merit repeat performances.

Sarah - I too have been curious about the competitive hook in classical music. I agree with you that competitions offer models for audience education that are worth considering for our orchestral concerts. Many of the big competitions (e.g., the Cliburn) have over the years grown exponentially and expertly in the area of audience education and engagement. They have perfected extensive audience development tools to nurture their audience's desire to be an integral part of the music-making process. Many competitions will offer opportunities for audience members to host and sometimes interact with performers - getting to know intimately the personal drive and vision of the musician that compels them to strive for artistic excellence. They have opportunities to learn more about the music in a non-threatening way by attending lectures led by expert musicologists. They can socialize with their fellow-audience members and learn from each other as they evaluate the various performers they have heard in a competition. And finally, there is the excitement of being present at an event that will select a winner - perhaps a future "great."

Whether or not we think competitions should be left to the sports arena or not - the fact is that audiences feel welcomed within this highly interactive model.

I attended one of your Access Concerts when the NAC Orchestra performed at the Kimmel Centre a few years ago. It was a new music concert and was very intimate. I enjoyed the small venue and interaction between the composer, musicians, and audience. I look forward to seeing how these concerts evolve in the years to come.

Professional development: this summer while teaching at our Summer Music Institute, I worked with students on simple public speaking skills. In our first class they had to state their name and tell why they chose their instrument, while holding their instrument and a microphone at the same time. We added more requirements in successive classes, and by the end they agreed that polished presentations aren't as easy as they look, but the ability to communicate verbally with an audience is something all these students will surely face in the future.

Genevieve is right - effective advocacy for music education is critical in the overall quest to engage our communities around the value of music in our lives. If we believe that school is the foundation for everything we want our future to be, then we must ensure that school includes music and the arts. And while I think we (and I'm using the royal 'we' here) have been quite successful in talking to and supporting the 'converted' - our music and music education peers, we have a very important need to get out to the 'unconverted' - to the people (parents, media, administrators, etc.) who simply don't support music in education. Not because they don't believe in it but simply because they don't necassarily know any better; they haven't been exposed to the benefits in a very meaningful way.

The Coalition for Music Education in Canada has been working hard over the past several years to do more to engage a broader public through initiatives like our Champions for Music Education campaign which we will be expanding this year and our PSA campaign - all available at our website: www.weallneedmusic.ca. We have developed an active and effective partnership with the NAC around an event we launched in 2005 called Music Monday, where on the first Monday of each May, students, teachers, and parents join with their communities to perform the same song at the exact same time across the country (www.musicmonday.ca). The effect was magical this past year and we estimated over half a million students were involved in every corner of the country. Now, the beauty and wonder of the event is that it is not only a totally grassroots event with incredible concerts and events of all shapes and sizes from the tiniest, most remote, northern communities to our largest urban centres, but that it is a powerful and dramatic demonstration of the power of music to unite not only a community but an entire country! Music Monday gives everyone who participates a platform to deliver positive, consistent key messages (which we carefully provide in downloadable kits) to a very broad public through the media attention the event captures. While we are heading only into our third year of the event, we anticpate that particpation could double next year.

I suppose my point is that we need to continue to find positive, constructive ways to talk about the need to protect and enhance quality music education in our schools because people want to rally around something positive.

School really is the foundation for a vibrant musical community and I shudder to think what this world would be like when we turn over a generation of children without the benefit of the arts in their education. We need a kinder, more compassionate world and music can help us get there. There's no question that literacy and numeracy are important but its music and the arts that gives us our humanity.

A little more on the topic of professional development: In Philadelphia, we began an organization-wide initiative several years ago called the "Raising the Invisible Curtain" initiative. Its goals are shared by most of us, I believe, to bring more people into the concert hall, and to deepen the musical experiences of our concert-goers. A cross-constituency group of musicians, staff, and board members developed core strategies for accomplishing these goals, and then programs on which we wanted to focus. We have started a number of new programs since then, and also infused existing programs with the philosophies and strategies of "RTIC."

As part of this initiative, musicians are doing a variety of things that they were not necessarily asked to do before, including speaking from the stage, sometimes at subscription concerts, working in a variety of ways in community settings, creating and leading more interactive performances for school and community settings, etc. We knew that our musicians would want to work on what in many cases were already considerable abilities in this area, so we hired someone to help support them. Our Music Animateur, Thomas Cabaniss, does a variety of things at the organization, including serving as a creative catalyst for all of us, particularly connected to this intiative, but one of his major roles is to provide support and professional development for musicians.

I forwarded the NSO survey to key board members here. What a wonderful perspective of audience development! I recently had a close encounter of the "CE kind" when I was volunteering at downtown community fundraiser. I introduced myself from the symphony and a fellow teammate exclaimed,"I am a 'secret' fan of Seth (Krimsky, our principal bassonist)!" She is especially looking forward to hearing him in the bassoon concerto in November (has her tickets already). She worked at Microsoft and was on a project that included Seth's wife. She was "thrilled to be so near to greatness" (yes, her exact words!) I also told her about Seth giving the pre-concert lecture for Bluebeard's Castle in the spring, another seat sold.

Yvonne's question, "Do our efforts translate into increased ticket sales?" They will I believe if we continue to keep focused on the over arching purpose of audience development. These activities keep "the pot stirred up," a phrase sometimes used by sales managers.

Different community building models - What about the county fair model? A 1921 newspaper article describes the fair as an "educational clearing house" for farm & home..."an agricultural & industrial institute for residents of town and country" (we could say those in music and those yet to step through the door). And for the urban dweller, the fair "furnishes an avid picture of the agricultural resource of the community." Wouldn't it be just as appropriate to furnish an avid picture of the musical resource of our communities? Celebrating Canada's Musical Mondays or in the states MENC's Music in our Schools Month (March) in the context that 4H clubs are celebrated at county fairs as well as various professional and amateur musical groups. Seattle Symphony has produced in three "Days of Music" over the past 6 years. The last was May 20, 2006. We opened with representatives from Seattle Schools elementary school bands & orchestras in pre-concert performances before a side by side concert with Seattle Youth Symphony; followed by a free community concert premiering a work commissoned by a revered elder of the Coastal Salish People; followed by performances by the University of Washington Wind Ensemble; ending with the last performance of our Made in America II Festival of living composers! How much more visible we would be if we consistently had a "Day of Music."

I agree we need to examine the reasons of why we do community engagement to see if we are grounding our activities in the mission of the organization as well as resounding sympathetic vibrations in the community at large. Yet, stewardship of symphonic music in a professional performing arts organization warrants considerations of the impact of community engagement activities on audience development. In the music business we need to measure our return on investment. What kinds of measurement of success can assess quality of musical environment as well as the health of the individual organization within that environment?

GREAT job articulating these issues, Aaron. I'm going to remember your "hedgehog" analogy because it's just terrific. Best of luck this year! Yvonne

Yvonne, Thanks for the kind words. I must credit Jim Collins for first unpacking "The Hedgehog Concept" in his 2001 book Good to Great.

I agree with Nancy that as stewards of symphonic music, and I would add of an institution, orchestras have every right to use "audience development" (I assume this means ticket sales) as one yardstick to measure the impact of community engagement.

My points are that ticket sales are all too often the only yardstick orchestras ever consider for evaluating impact on both sides, and that the community's right to their own yardsticks (be they diversity in the orchestra's staff and board, increased community access to our great, expensive, exclusive spaces, etc.) are not often treated as equally important to orchestras.

To the question of other measurements, there are many other ways to measure impact (i.e., increased communication, a desire for unforeseen partnerships, greater job satisfication, more resources of many types, etc.). However, more interesting is the question of whether the health of the individual organization is more important than the "quality of [its] musical environment." What about more important than the health of its musical environment?

Genevieve--
Polyphonic.org would welcome the opportunity to be a repository site for program models and other materials regarding community engagement. We welcome participation from every orchestra. To all our readers, please consider sending us a submission to share your experiences.

What about cellos? We can't really afford one of those indestructible travel cases, but do have a large, padded box purchased from a local violin dealer that is usually used to ship instruments by FEDEX. It's under 60 linear inches. Do you think using it when flying by commercial airline would be advisable?

Does anyone know if airlines are allowing instruments on board after the last London-US threat? They were only allowing laptop-size items, and I believe one item per person. I am about to go on tour to Mexico with a group of musicians, and I am getting a bit worried we will have to check all the instruments at the gate. Any updates?

Recently Posted on "Musical America", NPR discontinues "Performance Today" http://www.musicalamerica.com/news/newsstory.cfm?archived=0&storyID=14582&categoryID=1&cookies=1

I wish and think that if there was an arts tv network thats main focus was on classical music and opera that a new audience could be found for orchestras. All day long great performances of symphonies in their entirety or movement selections. Opera and chamber music selections of vigorating performances; Mahler Mondays for example. Commercials with great artists such as pianists, violinists, singers, poets, writers, conductors, such as yourself Mr. Slatkin, talking about music for 30 seconds with demonstrations and clips. Sampling their work in a brilliant format that entices the viewer to tune in at 8 o' clock on Friday night. I could envision a daily lineup of Mozart and Bach to the Strausses and beyond that everyday people could watch and listen to as to broaden their sense of understanding of classical music and what it is. They just don't yet, is how I see it.

Leonard is right on the money. The only way we might be able to cultivate and nurture young souls is to bring our medium as close to them as possible. Perhaps one day, symphony orchestras may have their concert halls hooked up to the internet to create an online subscription series--perhaps students can draw upon these concerts in a live situation through their schools, through classical video and to the world as a whole (through online transactions)--and perhaps television can develop classical talent mediums such as exist for pop music--ie Classical Idol--bringing America to its feet with their young musicians.

I would just like to comment on mkozak's ideas concerning the separation of curriculm for conservatories vs. universities. The main problem I see is that there aren't enough conservatories to go around for the number of talented and dedicated musicians to get into. Also, a number of the bigger universities have Schools of Music large enough and with the highest quality of applied instructors as to rival conservatories for quality of instruction and ensembles. It is also incorrect to imply that it is always only the best students who get into conservatories, while universities are filled with the also-rans. Just like orchestral auditions, school auditions are based on subjective factors as well as objective. To separate university degrees and conservatory degrees to the extent proposed would eliminate many deserving, talented and hard-working musicians from consideration. mkozak also does not take into consideration that universities are also usually more able to offer financial aide to the students who need it. Do we really want to exclude musicians from consideration because they couldn't afford to go to a conservatory? Music ability and acheivement is mostly based on hard work, dedication and talent, no matter where you received your degree or training. What Mr. Kahn proposes is, unfortunately, necessary for the financial well-being of musicians today. I belive it can be done with minimal impact on traditional music major curriculums, as the concepts and specifics really aren't that complicated. I think some of the topics can be covered in one semester (or quarter), or even half a semester. It is essential that we be concerned about all our hard-working music students and to offer all of them what they need to suceed. The last thing we need is to discourage them from becoming orchestral musicians. The fault of good orchestral gigs being few and far between is not that there are too many musicians, but that there are too few ensembles and not enough money flowing into the arts. Working on more community involvement and better arts education for all children, adults, and politicians, putting pressure on state and federal governments for more arts funding to ensembles, venues and schools, all with the goal of elevating music and the arts from being "cultural arm candy" for the rich to being a vibrant and necessary part of the American culture which enriches both mind and soul for everyone, will go a long way towards alleviating the financial burdens and problems that beset music professionals today. The last thing we need now is internal elitism.

Seems to me that this arena has remarkable potential to reveal the essential contribution of an orchestra to its community, area and nation. It also may serve to broaden knowledge of and stimulate interest in orchestral music... particularly contemporary symphonic music.

However, a substantial downside is that these benefits are relatively intangible to those orchestral players who generally realize only infinitesimal direct financial gains for the reuse of their hard-won abilities. While we're brainstorming this new realm, let's not build it on forced philanthropy from orchestral musicians.

While it's true that live recordings "don't require extra work from the musicians," it's also true (in my experience) that there is no money for patch sessions and that the profits are split between the organization, any soloist(s) and the conductor, with perhaps half of the $.99 per track then being divided between something like 100 orchestra players. While this may be the reality of our contemporary playing field, it's a far cry from the income stream provided to orchestral players by the up-front session payments of yore.

More information about Drew McManus's work to help the Louisiana Philharmonic after Katrina can be found at this link: http://www.artsjournal.com/adaptistration/archives/2005/10/lpo_displaced_m.html

Up here in Canada the indie rock movement is maturing. University-educated violinists like Owen Pallett (under the moniker "Final Fantasy") are creating music that melds avant-garde intellectualisms, counterpoint and a post-modern pop sensibility. The young indie audience's sit down at the seedy bars and clubs and actually listen. These artists are organized - they have developed a recording 'collective' - Pallett's is called 'Blocks'. This is not popcorn fluff/muzak to be casually written off; this is serious music that puts most of our attempts at attracting the 'youth market' and developing a contemporarily-relevent new music program, to shame.
What can we do about this?
For one, we have to lose our chauvinisms, especially the pretense that we embody, and hold a monoply on, 'serious art music'. Secondly, we have to have something to say through our instruments, and not simply "listen to how in-tune I play!".
After that, comes the soul-searching of whether we are artists or professionals, and analyzing how these two identities often contradict each other.

well said.

Bravo to Tom Reel and the musicians of the Virginia Symphony! This brochure is a real model for selling an orchestra in a community. I especially like the title's "Major League Team" reference. When you think about it, orchestras and sports teams have a lot in common. Both are made up of talented people who make the community a better place to live. -Timothy Judd

I've written off tuxedo purchases and cleanings, with never a question.

As stated in the article, tuxedos will probably not cause any problems as a tuxedo is not generally considered suitable for "everyday" use. The purpose of the article was to point out that some items of concert clothing are not deductible (such as plain white shirts or black business suits) and that some other items of concert clothing may raise questions.

Further, questions about deductions will not be raised unless the return is audited. Therefore, if there is any problem with the tuxedo purchases, it will not be addressed unless or until the return is actually audited by the IRS.

Bernstein's "Young People's Concerts" explained the music, exciting interest in the performances. This type of program makes a TV performance more accessible to the general pulic.

I am so glad to see this topic on Polyphonic, particularly after the virtual discussion held on Community Engagement.

If the outreach services are mandatory, that should definitely be indicated in the advertisement. Even if the services are optional, meaning that the musician makes the choice to participate or not, that should be indicated in the advertisement as well. That is the job for which the musician is auditioning, after all.

This is probably heresy (it will not be the first or last time), but I think an interview process for musicians might be a good idea. I will set up a hypothetical (which, of course, will picked apart): An orchestra has Community Engagement as a priority. An audition is held for one position, and three players are equally musically qualified. However, only one player really likes and is good at Community Engagement. An interview process could probably bring that out (because I am assuming a very high degree of honesty on the part of musicians).

With regard to question number three, St. Paul teaches that not everyone is given the same gifts. It is unreasonable to expect that ALL musicians can write a script, speak well in public, and relate equally well to pre-schoolers and the elderly. While musicians who have recently graduated have a greater expectation of performing Community Engagement, there are tenured musicians whose idea of the job was to sit down, play the instrument, and leave, and who would rather die than speak in public. It is our obligation to create Engagement opportunities for these folks in which their gifts and talents are best utilized (although this may still be outside the comfort zone), and if that means creating "large ensemble" events with reception following, that's what we need to do. People need to be seen at their best, and we cannot make individuals into something they are not. (What is the expression? "Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It makes you look foolish and annoys the heck out of the pig.") Therefore, if someone is performing poorly, maybe that person needs a different kind of Engagement opportunity.

I look forward to the ensuing spirited discourse.

I found this a fascinating discussion of orchestra marketing issues that have parallels in many orchestras. Among many other things, I found Mr. Snead's use of the pronoun "we" with regard to issues of programming both encouraging as an indicator of a team approach and a little alarming in its implications for the artistic prospects of our industry.

Whereas traditional pre-packaged subscriptions have provided Music Directors some latitude in choosing less-familiar works and composers, the "Create-Your-Own" subscription model provides data that can be used persuasively by marketers to ensure that each and every program is weighted towards the familiar, tried and true.

In their discussion, Stager and Snead seem to accept that the potential ticket-buyer's lack of familiarity with some programs is a given, and seek remedies through providing lots of online information, pre-concert chats and the like, but I wonder if they would care to comment on the long-term implications of the "Create-Your-Own" subscription model in narrowing the repertoire, especially for orchestras without the a/ marketing/audience development resources and b/ interested and informed media that the NYP enjoys.

Reply from David Snead:

Thank you very much for your post. I'm glad you found the article worthwhile, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. You've raised an important issue.

To your question:

If you're asking why we don't stick to the traditional fixed-subscription model, wherein we program primarily for those folks who attend almost regardless of the program, there's a quick answer: it isn't working. You may have noticed that traditional subscriptions began losing their efficacy, particularly with younger audiences, about 15 years ago. I would not recommend staying the course with a model that doesn't work.

Here's a different model: program by segment. Find the people in your audience who are ready for something different, and give it to them - say "This is for you." Find the more risk-averse music lovers in your town, and program a series for them. Tell them "This is for you." You may find that this works better for you and for the audience than trying to force unfamiliar music onto audiences who don't want it. You may also find your repertoire becomes even broader, and that you're suddenly selling more subscriptions because your packages are now speaking directly to your segments.

And not only that - you may also find it's a lot more satisfying to perform for an audience that came exactly for what you're performing that night. I mean, is it really that much fun to play a piece of new music for a conservative subscription audience that you know is going to be met with rustling program books, heavy coughing, a light smattering of applause and a whole bunch of people who never come back? Is that fair to the music? Does anybody win when that happens?

I'm not saying you shouldn't play unfamiliar music. On the contrary, in the case of the New York Philharmonic, which performs more than 100 pieces of music a year, it's inevitable that many pieces will be unfamiliar. I am saying we - yes, we - need to think hard about how we're going to program and present it; we need to commit to making it work for our audiences.

Presentation and concert format can go a long way towards introducing unfamiliar music to audiences. Our commitment to new music does not end with simply putting it on a program. With equal vigor, we need to commit to turning the audience on to this new piece of music - telling them why we programmed it, why we believe in this piece, and why it's worth their attention. In other words, we need to make it matter to them.

And yes, it is absolutely a given that, in every audience, there are people who've never before heard what we're performing. We should never forget that.

Even at the venerable New York Philharmonic, 35% of the audience at an average concert has never been there before. We have a great opportunity, at every concert, to create new, lifelong classical music fans. We also have the very realistic chance of turning off those first-time customers with an evening of music that leaves them cold, and a concert experience that makes them feel like unwelcome outsiders. Personally, I vote for turning them on to the music.

And, just to clarify, I am not advocating the Create Your Own (CYO) model instead of traditional subscriptions. Rather, CYO is an upsell for people who would otherwise simply buy the occasional single ticket. Any good marketing program will market traditional subscriptions to those for whom that packaging device works, but they also will find a way to upsell people who've rejected traditional subscriptions in favor of single tickets. And all of this - the growth of singles, CYOs, etc. - is a symptom of a greater problem: the declining musical literacy of our younger audiences, which has most certainly impacted programming. We ignore this reality at our own peril.

One more thing. What's so "alarming" about my use of "we?" We are, in fact, all in this together. I feel as committed to the artistic success of the New York Philharmonic as everyone else privileged to work for this extraordinary institution. Attracting a large audience to support the artistic ambitions of this orchestra is what gets me up in the morning.

P.S. To your question about promotional resources: it sounds as if your orchestra, like most, invests far too little in promotion. (The National Arts Marketing Project says you should spend 25% of your budget on the marketing function. Almost no one does that.) Promotion matters in filling halls, and you should probably do more of it. The good news is, selling more tickets will give you more resources for more promotion and for realizing your artistic dreams. You see, it really is "we."

Reply from Christopher Stager:

A long-term reliance on "Create-your-Own" (CYO) subscription models has implications far beyond the issue of programming.

I have seen a clear correlation between redemption of vouchers and single ticket sales. The volume may differ, but the curves are near identical - CYO's tend to redeem into more popular programs - and consume inventory we might be able to sell at a higher price. It becomes important to influence their redemption into less popular programs, sometimes with engaging information, sometimes by providing a special offer of, say, two admissions per coupon.

Of greater concern is a dependence on CYO sales when the ratio of available seats (large hall, frequent concerts) to gross population (small market) is high. Unlike seated subscriptions, which compel attendance, the casual nature of CYO's can result in under-utilization. The "spoilage" of unused vouchers leads to low renewal rates for this option.

In a city of 8 million, this is less of an issue. The market continually replenishes itself. But in much smaller markets the critical mass of potential buyers can be quickly depleted. The preferred strategy is to increase the average number of concerts per subscriber by attractively presenting the longer, sustainable seated subscription series. I have frequently listed CYOs in brochures next to seated subscriptions only to illustrate the better value of a longer series commitment.

And as much as CYOs may be becoming the product of choice for more casual attendees, CYOs are also the fast fallback position of a telemarketing campaign where management is not focused on the institution's artistic values and program balance. In an effort to close the sale, inexperienced callers leap to this option, and despite caller ID and other blocks, most of our new subscriptions are still sold through a well-executed telemarketing campaign.

Thank you for your provocative question. Let's keep this dialogue open!

Dear Dave,

Your article on the Polyphonic website is excellent. I have only one small problem with it.
The entire article is based on the presumption that an AFM Local represents every American and Canadian orchestra and that very member of those orchestras is a member of the AFM.

To write about this subject without discussing the issue of union security is to omit a large part of the picture. For instance, what does a musician do if he or she not an AFM member? By the same token, what does an orchestra do that is not totally satisfied with the representation they receive from their AFM Local. These are significant issues that need clarification.

Sam Denov
sdenov@comcast.net

It is nice to hear from Sam Denov in the form of his comments, which I think are very fair. Sam and I are both former ICSOM officers. Unfortunately, my mind didn't take me in the direction of union security. In addition, the requested length of the article was an impediment to a more comprehensive discussion.

The union is also obligated to fairly represent a non-member who works under the same contract. The topic of union security and all of its ramifications should be clearly addressed on Polyphonic. I'm not sure I would be the right person to delve into the area as I'm (obviously) not a lawyer. But perhaps someone else will have the opportunity to do a follow-up.

David Angus

I find this discussion very interesting. Way back when, I was "looked down" on by the music program at the university, not permitted to audition for the better musical organizations (they were ONLY for straight music majors), and treated like music was only an avocation for me when I chose to study in an academic area as well as music.

By the way, I went this route for several reasons; my parents insisted that I be able to hold a "real job" besides music so I could support myself; I enjoyed studying areas other than music and liked getting a break from the music if you will; I had to maintain a high grade point average to keep scholarships that I HAD to have to attend and often the BEST grades given in the music program were C+'s (!); since the school had a graduate program undergrads got the last of the last as far as performance opportunities; etc etc. I can tell you, at the time, it was a struggle to try to do both. Mostly due to walls put up by the music faculty. When I ultimately found the best teacher for me in the area; he made up for some lacking things by suggesting and recommending me for community groups and pick up groups that played at a high level and were certainly more real world. I have never been in the situation where I personally could afford anything unless I earned the money for it. I mention this because many college students had wealthy parents subsidizing them through school, and YES those kids had an advantage even if their playing was not up to snuff! So, I learned economic lessons early on and I am not sure how someone would be in the position to not face such realities as a music student; IF they were paying their way through. I did work study, and I took out loans. Due to these responsibilities, I HAD to get some job after college that paid the bills. Since I play a wind instrument, that has meant doing non-music work to make a living and playing in groups on the side. Fact is, I couldn't AFFORD to fly all over and go to auditions. I also needed to audition ONLY for the orchestras that would pay enough for me to live...that makes it even more competitive. I was very close to ranking high at the auditions I did do after college. However, I could only afford to go to about 5; at that time. All for major orchestras. I got in finals for two. Not TOO bad for a 23 year old female on a wind instrument I would say; someone that also studied science in school. I graduated undergrad in 1981; I went on to professional school to become a doctor, I practiced for 15 years AND played my instrument. I ultimately went on and did additional graduate work; and this time I could pay for it right then! I continued to play. NOW; I have at age 47 taken an early retirement from my practicing and would like to get back into full time music now that I CAN afford to do so. Something I couldn't do in my 20-30's. Now, I find it interesting that my method of education is being recommended to students!! When I went through so much grief and frankly discrimination for going the route I went! My personal opinion is that young people beginning advanced training, who don't already have an established career (as a soloist for example) OR who don't have a parent or other connection that assures a position or hearing on graduation; should study and get the BROADEST and education possible so that they have a foundation to move into many fields. When I have gone back recently and met with muscian peers, who have done nothing else; I generally notice some very "negative" and unhappy types with a lot of complaints. A group of people who feel they have little control over their destiny. People who WANT the ability to do something else but who feel that they are ill prepared and educated to do anything else. Many times, they sound just like someone who has only had a high school education!! (I hear things like, "how could I do something else, this is the only thing I know, OR I can't really do math because I had 'math for musicians'") I am NOT saying ALLLLL full-time musicians feel this way, but I have run into MANY in many locations that say this same type of thing. They REGRET their educations, or feel that they didn't get what they paid for as you describe:-) On the other hand, I very much feel that I got what I paid for and that I gained knowledge that I could rely on for years to come. Now, having said this, I have some questions I would like to ask back, OK?

Since I have been "isolated" to my own community goings on, and I have not been around music schools recently; I was really quite shocked when I went back to hear some of the current crop of students. While there are a FEW very talented folks; the good majority have a very bland method, play rhythms inaccurately, play faster and higher but intonation and tome quality is lacking, do not have the BASICS that I was required to demonstrate quite frankly. So, I wonder if some of the schools are admitting folks that really are could not make it in 4 years, or even 6 after grad school; and the schools KNOW that. There ARE fewer opportunities and fewer financially stable orchestras. There are more situations where the musicians have to run the show in order to have an orchestra to play in. Even community orchestra opportunities have become rare. So, maybe the schools are just plain admitting too many? Maybe to pay the bills?

So, given that, I find that my "style" is now "old fashioned" since it is what was demanded 20 years ago rather than the bland and rote style that prevails today. (I again am referring to a wind instrument.) So, while I actually have far more experience than when I first grduated, have demonstrated leadership and outreach skills (even grant writing!!!); feel that I play circles around how I played back then by virtue of all of this and the fact that I have NOT slacked off all of this time; yet now I have trouble even getting considered. Why do you think this is the case now? Have the desired skills changed? Is it age-discrimination? Is it that the orchestral techniques of those that brought the expertise to this country or students of those people been lost or gone by the wayside?

Since I play well,lessons are not helpful other than for another pair of ears because I can do what is required with no problem. What does one do when one produces a tape based on the tempi at which a piece is usually played only to be told that it should be played faster? Play everything fast? Submit it at two different tempi to prove that I can do it many ways? What is the comment is something like, "You need to spend more time listening to more recordings..." Let me tell you, I can and have sent in demos where I literally played right over a recording from a top orchestra; in order to play everything JUST as they pay it; note for note...yet...interestingly, that is not what is wanted. I have been trying to figure out what is "different" now from the way I was taught. There has been some sort of change that has occurred, not to change the topic completely, but I wouold be very interested to hear what is going on now vs. 15-20 years ago. Like I said, keep in mind that I have kept up and I have not rested on my lurels during this time. I have continued to work and improve well beyond. So, one would think a committee would be overwhelmed with enthusiasm to get someone that uses the technique of the people that have literally written the book on orchestral playing for thir instrument. Do I now emphasise faster, higher, louder above all else?

Since I HAVE done it the way it is now suggested; and I have many good skills besides just playing that would be of use to an orchestra or life :-) I am at a loss as to what to do now that I can work towards something I couldn't afford way back??? I am not that old relatively but I am beginning to feel like a dinosaur!!! Or some musical misfit :-)

Hi Katherine from cold Calgary! I agree that public funders seem to want to shift away from direct funding of the arts. It seems more and more that they are moving towards an American model. Unfortunately, the Federal government has not put into place the philanthropic motivation by making a donation to an NFP arts organization 100% deductible. And while it is true that organizations are increasingly being held accountable for how their funds are spent, we are seeing, at least in Alberta, a real problem with the increased "hands-on" approach. No one dare have an annual deficit; large cash contingency funds are required (500,000$ for the CPO); and if you dip into a surplus, not only do you have to pay it back but there is a likelihood of being penalized in the form of a reduced grant. In some ways the American model is looking more attractive - i.e., build up a large endowment for those rainy days because it beats being artistically black-mailed by a funder. Unfortunately, there is only so much cash around (though Canadians outside of Alberta might differ!) and there is a problem of trying to fundraise for operating versus the endowment. As Vanessa mentioned, Albertans are woefully underfunded in the arts; we are only hoping that the current Alberta political leadership race will put in someone with vision for the arts that existed in the reign of Peter Lougheed, the former premier of Alberta. But I would also add that the funders have to be responsible to the organizations as well. What good does it do to punish a struggling organization?

Hi Katherine - How are you? I really enjoyed meeting you earlier this year at the Uniting Our Voices conference in Ottawa. Adding to Rob's comments: It will be very interesting to see what happens in Alberta following the up-coming elections. I think this is true across Canada but especially in Alberta; we are dealing with a lot of 'new money' and a relatively new society. Alberta is all about the 'bottom line' and it is a constant struggle trying to explain the benefits of supporting and sustaining a strong and viable Arts Culture - rather than just balanced budgets. There is no real history here for large philanthropic donations to the arts. It's an up-hill battle for certain, but I do think we are making some progress.

Hi Francine,
I need to really look at the details but I do believe that Quebec does have a 'right to work' status. In other words you do not have to belong to a union in order to work at a 'union' job, but you will still have to pay dues to the union and are not necessarily covered by any union negotiated collective agreement relating to that job.

Compensation of musicians is always linked to the financial health of the orchestra. I wonder if there is a way to uncouple it, to recognize that musicians are highly educated professionals, that their 'work' is only partly visible during rehearsals and concerts, and that their pay should compensate the invisible work that musicians do, the research and professional development that is a way of life for every dedicated musician. Musicians usually describe it as 'practice' but that word doesn't communicate well to non-musicians, who may imagine that practice is a low-level activity of training fingers. Is orchestral music a profession? If the answer is 'yes' then how does that change the discussion? And if symphony musicians were to earn a professional income, how would that change the way they pursue their own professional development?

In Canada it all has to do with the "u." Not really, but labour is treated differently from labor in the States. As Francine pointed out, our OCSM orchestras decided for themselves(and some have recently had it decided for them) that they were either employees or independent contractors. Things are different from province to province because labour in Canada is under provincial jurisdiction whereas in the States it is Federal. Some provinces are more labour-leaning than others: Quebec has one of, if not the highest percentage of unionized workers; Alberta the lowest. Add to the curious situation that the AFM is certified in the U.S. but not in Canada. We voluntarily recognize the AFM as our bargaining agent. Add to this mix the existence of Status of the Artist legislation, which in federal cultural institutions, such as the CBC, and in Quebec, allows an artist or group of artists to force an employer to come to the bargaining table. Other provinces, such as Saskatchewan, have SofA legislation in place as well but the legislation has less teeth because it is again of a voluntary nature.
This labour difference has also allowed different language or the perpetuation of different language in the AFM bylaws. For years OCSM has tried to get rid of the Canadian exclusion concerning theatre contractors on local boards(Article 5, section 43). Theatre contractors are not allowed to sit on local boards in the U.S.; they are in Canada. This has been debated over at least 3 AFM conventions and continues to be a sticking point. There are no legal inhibitions to getting rid of the Canadian exclusion; rather it is simply a desire by some Canadian locals for status quo. The reasons given have been spurious at best, but because the U.S. delegates have no frame of reference for the discussion they have to this point allowed the differentiation to stand. It has created 2 levels of unionism within the Federation. On the other hand, even though the CBC agreement is not used in the U.S., an extension to the agreement has to be passed by the IEB according to AFM bylaws(Article 5, section 33a and b). In my view, this is where language for a Canadian exclusion would be appropriate. If nothing else, our labour differences have certainly provided for some of the more interesting moments at past conventions!

My orchestra, Toledo Symphony, does many concerts throughout the Christmas season. One way to cope has been decorating. The percussion section started with tinsel, which led to hats, which led to lights and so forth. This spread through the orchestra and by the end of last years run, we looked very jolly. Fortunately, all our audiences loved it and therefore management was happy too.

Stay healthy and be safe during this busy season.

Nora Schankin - bassoon

Back in my college days at Northwestern University we did a semi-staged version of "Hansel and Gretel" for a family Christmas concert. We used a recorder for the cuckoo in the "cuckoo" sequence in the first act. Well, the recorder must have had a major build-up of condensation, because when we got to the first "cuckoo" we heard this horrible gurgling sound instead of a cuckoo! The orchestra (and even the conductor, Bernard Rubenstein) were laughing so hard we could barely finish the act!

Martha Mattes-violin
Tulsa Symphony Orchestra

Interesting that you should hone in on the chaos created by technology. I study this fragmentation in several contexts and my only advice is for the time being try and stick with what is proven, while keeping an eye on the future.

Every aspect of actually everything is being tested and exercised, from copyright to medium of presentation and not only in the music world. These innovations can be seen as either negatively or positively according to one's viewpoint.

From too much info.(tmi) to incompatibility between mediums, for musicians it makes sense to simply stick with what works, and like the musician letting the music lead the way, for technology fans, just let the technology lead the way--seeing each as distinctive until reliability proves itself.

This is not to say that one should bury their head in the sand, only that one should also not be overwhelemed by the fast paces of changes in technology.

I'm an engineering/CS major, and oddly, I simplify my applications of tech., rather than run the treadmill. Simplicity however, need not mean isolation.

Every year, back when Harford used to have a resident ballet, we'd look forward to our first Nutcracker orchestra rehearsal - to hear the brass section sing the women's chorus part in the Snowflake piece at the end of Act 1 in falsetto! Cracked us string players up ever year!!

But the best story is the year we had 20+ Nutcrackers - perhaps 28? We were all getting a bit feisty, and so our principal trumpet helped us get through. Listen to my story! :-)

And Happy Holidays to everyone!

On Ann Drinan's audio post: While it is in the holiday spirit, I think that for performances, musicians should not act so unprofessionally. Passing the melody from the original instrument to various sections not only is disrespectful to the conductor, but to the dancers and audience who expect a certain part to sound like a certain part. We do not have the authority to make such radical changes to the music when we are contracted to perform our parts based on our skill and training. This display of unprofessionalism is exactly why our managers and boards treat us like children that simply don't know better.



And while this is 15 years ago, these antics are not so uncommon today. You are getting paid to play, you are a professional musician hired to back up a dance group. This is not a game, nor is it a professional way to behave during a show. There are way too many ballet orchestras in jeopardy and out of work to be presenting this tomfoolery. Musicians may need to keep the relaxed atmosphere at rehearsals for their own sanity. Sure, you have all played this way too much, and it fun to joke around and make fun of it. But when you are on the picket line, unemployment line, or wondering why your orchestra is no longer "needed" by the ballet company in your town...remember that you had a chance to behave like a professional and instead decided to behave like undisciplined children. You had a chance to introduce classical music, through various art forms, to new ticket buyers. You are an ambassador of your craft, not a high school pit band.



Perhaps musicians whoa re considering behaving in a way similar to what Ms. Drinan describes should consider the musicians in the Atlanta Ballet who lost their jobs. Could you imagine them trying to justify their presence in the pit if they behaved so unprofessionally? And can you imagine any free-lance player getting asked back to a job if they behaved like this? Perhaps we don't deserve contracts after all.
Katin

Working with Jon and Laura to bring this project to fruition was a joy--and not just because of the music involved, or because they are fun people to be around, but because they understood what needed to happen for it to become reality.

Jon threw himself into the process whole heartedly, all the while supported and nudged by Laura, who kept him focused on the ultimate goal.

Too often, people want the end results, but are not willing to put in the effort. Jon and Laura invested their time, heart and soul into making the CD a reality. It is as much a tribute to their spirit as it is to the music of Jan Bach.

OK, I have a new Nutcracker story from the run just completed here in Tulsa. We actually completed the first act in the dark in one of our performances! When we got about 1/4 of the way through the Dance of the Snowflakes, the standlights in the pit started flickering on and off, then they went out completely. Some quick-thinking person backstage ran down and turned on the overhead work lights in the back of the pit so we had at least some light. Our musician instincts took over, and we simply finished the act. The next morning the music director at my church, who also happens to be artistic director of the Tulsa Boy Singers (who sang the chorus in the Dance of the Snowflakes) told me about the panic backstage. The stage manager was ready to bring down the curtain, but the orchestra just kept playing on!

Fortunately, the stand lights were functioning by the time the second act began. I'm told the problem was some sort of electrical short, and the IATSE stagehands at the Tulsa Performing Arts Center solved the problem in short order.

Martha Mattes-violin
Tulsa Symphony Orchestra

I agree that the audition process does not always result in the right winner, but that is why we have the probation period. However, it would be better if we can prevent an unqualified musician from spending the money to move all their belongings to a new city only to be fired a few months later. A chamber music segment sounds like a great idea, though harpists and percussionists would need the music ahead of time. Some conductors jump the gun and grant early tenure in a burst of enthusiasm, only to regret their decision later. This practice should not be allowed. Pathological personality types sometimes play great auditions but do not make great stand partners. Why not have an interview process? Other jobs do. Even if it means a couple of weeks of playing in the orchestra, that's like an interview. I also agree that the resumé should not be a big factor. There are some fantastic candidates who have not gone to the expensive schools nor had a job before.

I'm surprised that all these comments fail to mention the importance of recommendations and references. If a screening/live audition process can offer a slate of qualified applicants, then recommendations can help narrow down "the right player." There are plenty of questions a live audition cannot answer-and these avoidable issues ofte emerge in a probationary period.

1. Does the player show up late?
2. Does the player have an odd personality such that he/she causes discord in the ensemble?
3. Does the player work well under pressure?
4. Does the player actually like music? Is He/She curious? Well-read?
5. Can the player speak to groups of schoolchildren?
6. Does the player speak badly of others behind his/her back?
7. Is the player always complaining about his/her salary?

In some of the best chamber ensembles, players are hired based on recommendations from others in the group.

As an orchestra musician who has performed auditions as well as served on orchestra audition committees, I certainly agree that there is more to the hiring process than just the audition. The resume or referral gets you through the door, the audition is the interview - an interview by panel - and the final step is to have the candidate work the job and go through an evaluation. I have found that auditions can and do go longer than the 12 minutes referred to in this discussion, and yes, the question "Would you like to try that one again?" can and should be asked, not only to determine if the candidate can actually play the excerpt, but most importantly to determine if the candidate has poise under pressure.

Hi Rip, Hope you are doing well. In response to your second to last paragraph about Berlin, in this month's "Double Bassist" magazine there is an article about auditions, and an interview with Peter Riegelbauer, a Berlin Philharmonic bassist, and one of the orchestra's two chairman. He states in part:..."We want musicians who fit the section's approach but who are also real artists and not just instrumentalists. It's like a very good soccer team-the spirit for the team is number one, but everybody is also a soloist." It seems that both solo and ensemble skills are important here.

I like the idea of the trial period before the probationary period--a lot of players can shoot off a Paganini caprice, but cannot count rests or blend with a section. I think the decentralized recording setup has too many inherent flaws, as others have already pointed out.

Regarding the question "To Vote or Not to Vote" I can see two types of situations, neither of which is enhanced by having Musicians voting as Board Members.

The first situation is probably the most common. The outcome of a vote is not in doubt with the vast majority of the Board following the confident recommendation of their leadership on the Executive Board. In this situation, a few votes from the Musicians, even as a minority, have no impact that couldn't be just as clearly expressed without a vote.

The second situation is scary. A vote's outcome is in doubt and the vote(s) of Musician(s) could decide a controversial issue. I hope this scenario requires no elaboration here to demonstrate the perils of the situation for the voting Musician(s) and for the Board!

That said, I think that a Musician presence in the Boardroom can SOMETIMES be beneficial and that Musicians on selected Committees can OFTEN be of great benefit. Who should decide? The Board should make the call.

An enlightened Board will frequently avail themselves of the input of Musicians (whether or not they vote). A less progressive Board will be less likely to seek input from the Musicians (whether or not they vote).

Finally, who represents the orchestra at Board meetings? Here I think the Musicians must decide. Perhaps the Orchestra Committee is the ideal group since they are charged with representing the Musicians already and tend to be knowledgable leaders, perhaps representing the diversity within their ranks. Specific Board Committees might benefit from Musicians selected to do that specific work (so the Orchestra Committee isn't over-taxed), but in any case representatives should probably be chosen by their peers. (In my orchestra, the Orchestra Committee's job description in the CBA includes attending Board Meetings when invited - no voting. I like that idea. There is nothing to preclude other invitees, as well. But there remains a diversity of opinion on this entire dicey subject, some favoring less involvement and others favoring more including voting, so I am speaking as one here and not for the organization). However, I will volunteer that the current interaction among Musicians, Staff and Board here seems to be very healthy and productive both in general and on specific joint Committees.

Tom Reel, Virginia Symphony

Thanks to Tom Reel for expanding on the inadvisability of musicians voting on board committees. Beyond its illusory appeal, the musician vote on a board committee seems to me to be filled with significant pitfalls for all concerned. Votes are for board members; management and musicians attending board meetings most effectively provide insight and information to the voting process.
Roger Ruggeri

It occurred to me after reading Rip's Day 5 response that some of the readers of this site may be unaware of the following (which was later also approved by the Regional Orchestra Players' Association-the Major Orchestra Managers' Conference was absorbed into the different orchestra area designations of the American Symphony Orchestra League):

CODE OF ETHICAL AUDITION PRACTICES

The following code of ethical audition practices, approved in 1984 by the International Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians (ICSOM), the Major Orchestra Managers Conference (MOMC) and the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), is a document of suggested procedure for management and orchestra Musicians alike. As with all codes of ethics, it is not a contract; no one is involuntarily bound to it and it contains no provisions for punitive action. Those who endorsed it have maintained that they will conduct their auditions in accordance with the principles articulated therein, with the tacit assertion that they think others should do likewise. The code of ethics was conceived and formulated by the Major Managers-ICSOM Liaison Committee, the first time that both ICSOM and MOMC have acted in concert rather than autonomously in addressing such a major issue. In the belief that the code may be improved over time, it includes a provision for regular review by a joint committee of representatives from the three endorsing organizations.

1. Purpose and Scope of Code: It is of utmost importance to Musicians, managers and conductors that auditions be conducted in accordance with guidelines ensuring competition that is fair to all who audition while providing the best results for orchestras seeking Musicians.

2. Preparation for Auditions

a. Notices of auditions should be given only for genuine vacancies, including newly created positions, which the management intends to fill as a result of those auditions, with no predeterminations having been made as to who will be hired . Musicians taking such auditions should only do so with the intention of accepting the position if it is offered.

b. Auditions should be advertised in appropriate places, including the International Musician. Notices should be clear and complete, specifying the Position intended to be filled by the auditions, the person to contact in response to the notice and the dates that applications are due and that auditions should be held. Notices should appear far enough in advance for interested Musicians to apply and adequately prepare.

c. All applicants should be sent written responses to their applications. Invited applicants should be sent clear instructions setting forth the date, time and place of the audition, the complete audition repertoire (excluding sight-reading repertoire) and parts for announced excerpts not generally available. All parts supplied by the orchestra should be legible and identical for all candidates.

d. Applicants should be given notice that if they choose not to attend the audition they should promptly notify the personnel manager or other designated person.

3. Conduct of Auditions

a. In preparing for and conducting auditions, all participants should be aware of policies and procedure governing those auditions, including this code.

b. Although the existence and composition of an audition committee and the nature and extent of its participation in auditioning and hiring is determined locally, Musicians' involvement should at least include the initial screening of applicants.

c. Applicants should not be disqualified from auditioning on the basis of information about them obtained from current or previous employers or from other institutions to which they have applied.

d. Auditionees should be given sufficient time and, to the extent possible, adequate private facilities in which to warm up and practice.

e. Parts supplied by the orchestra for auditions should be in good condition, legible and clearly marked as intended to be played at the audition.

f. There should be no discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, creed, national origin, religion, or sexual preference; steps ensuring this should exist in all phases of the audition process.

g. There should be reasonable accommodation for the handicapped.

h. Auditionees should be given opportunity and encouragement to comment, anonymously if desired, to the audition committee and management about the audition process.

i. Auditionees should be notified of their status in the audition process immediately upon such determination. Candidates under active consideration after auditions are completed should be so notified and given an estimated time of final decision.

j. Auditionees should be informed prior to auditions of the orchestra's policy regarding reimbursement of auditionees' expenses for additional stay or travel incurred at the request of management.

4. A joint committee of representatives of MOMC, ICSOM and the AFM Symphony Department shall be established to oversee and review this code periodically.

This is in reaction to the post of "gibarian":
What do any of things have to do with the job an individual is capable of doing in an orchestra? Most musicians are "odd". If the person was able to win an audition, I would say that they "work well under pressure". If the player did not "actually like music", I think they would have given it up by now. "Curious" about what? The ability to speak in front of groups of children should not be a requirement. I don't feel that questions 6 and 7 are applicable, either. What makes it okay for the reference to "speak badly of others behind" the back of the prospective hiree? Regarding showing up late, that depends on what your definition of "late" is, and if it became a problem for a newly hired orchestral musician, I'm sure it would be handled properly by the Personnel Manager.
I hope that people don't forget that one of the most important aspects of being a musician is the actual PLAYING.

The probation period is, IMO, a fundamental part of the audition process. Just because someone comes out on top at the audition before the music director and/or committee or the entire orchestra doesn't make the job offer a done deal. The job position is Orchestra Musician, and that means that the musician must be able to perform as a member of the orchestra, in rehearsals and in concerts, in accordance with the established performance standards. If "odd personality" is an issue, then by what standard is a personality odd?
I'm fascinated by the Berlin model, and while it may be brutal to some, it puts everything on the same level. The concept of a face-off of the candidates (Mozart at 20 paces!) has a particular appeal, at least to me. No politics - no excuses - everyone knows how the competition did.

Note that all these suggestions are moot, if members of the section do not trust the Principal. They will essentially ignore him/her, if that player is inconsistent or unreliable about entrances. Count your measures!!

It is also helpful if the Principal gets to know his/her section and talks to the section if necessary during or after rehearsals. And it is hugely important that he/she ensures that bowing changes get passed all the way through the section quickly.

Here in Southand East London the Baptist/ Evangelical Church underpins a lot of Afro-Caribbean communities, literally and reactively. To me as a Caucasian it's a sort of mirror image blend of conservatism and extroversion to the standard repertory tradition. I think reaching out to these guys is a very good idea, but I can also see paralell difficulties in contemplating it here.

The market for 'Christian' music has been burgeoning I believe, but as in most genres there are crude opportunistic productions as well as those based on real musicianship (like yours). Levels of musical appreciation can vary a lot, and putting musicians into services could expose that I guess (following a Gospel recitative's molto rubato would be quite a challenge I guess). I think Elvis Costello worked with the Blind Boys of Alabama a while back - Costello having gotten into extended composition - and maybe there's something in that small quasi/ a capella sound that would spark something? Thanks for making me think about this, and I'd like to know more about how it pans out for you
-best of luck.

Of course all races are intrinsically capable of performing all types of music, however exposure, and upbringing are factor in the type of musician that the individuals of different racial groups aspire to be. I am in favor of blind auditions. If special prefernces are given to minority, why not give preference to younger musicians, disabled musicians, and perhaps even obese musicians. Urban educational programs, and cultural change are the way to increasing minority representation, not artificial means. Thoses artificial means,that you suggest, only support the Idea that minority groups are inately inferior. The funding of community-based urban education is a great way

If you look at other professions besides music, they also do not reflect exact ratios of the ethnic makeup of their communities. It should be only ability that determines who gets the gig. That said, I have noticed that more and more symphony musicians are coming from non-European backgrounds. In our increasingly cosmopolitan cities, we are all exposed to many different varieties of music and dance that used to be confined to specific countries. In my city, some of our best flamenco dancers are Asian. Is there a movement to try and bring more white players into basketball or more black players into hockey? It's happening incrementally as cultural stereotypes are giving way. By all means, we should celebrate the diversifying of the musical talent pool, but we shouldn't agonize over it if there are more of one group or another who win auditions.

Plucky writes

The musical talent pool has always been diverse. The field has not always accessed that pool for the best players. The best players have not often been at the auditions. "Winning auditions" is not the only issue; getting all qualified people to the audition is also important.

In America, our values speak forcefully of equality of opportunity. If we agree with those values, we should be concerned, we should "agonize." If we agree that talent in any endeavor is spread out to all people, we should be concerned. We should also not allow the "banner of ability" to ignore or cloud the fact that legacy, opportunity, access, workplace culture, and networking all play critical elements in "determining who gets [and keeps] the gig," much like in corporate environments.

As far as celebrating goes, Canadian Steve Nash has been the NBA's MVP for two straight years. African-American Grant Fuhr was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2003 and is ninth on the all-time wins for goalies. I call that celebrating diversity. By the way, how exactly does the orchestra field celebrate its diversity?

It should not be surprising that "cracking open the doors" programmatically, even with sincere enthusiasm, after decades of having them virtually shut will not immediately turn the tide; either for the core audience or the hoped-for new audience. As Carla Johnson's fine article on the Harmony program proves, it takes time to develop trust, and courage to do something new. The "war story" is an apples to oranges comparison; folk, rock, jazz, hip hop music for orchestras is not symphonic music by minority composers.

Our "core" repertoire didn't become core in one season. More importantly, despite incredible advances in technology and in the number of orchestras, the vetting processes and people (i.e., conductors, patrons, etc.) that would evaluate the quality of new scores in the 19th century and support them do not seem to exist in the same degree today for minority composers. The access symphonic composers had to an orchestra and to informed review of their work are not improved on balance.

Programming diverse composers is not insulting to people; what is insulting is how much opportunity they are given to hear it, and how quickly we expect acceptance when it has taken orchestras so long themselves to. A knee-jerk reaction based on one season's tickets sales to concerts of new music is quite an unmusical way to evaluate and support quality work. It takes time and courage. Thinking that the public would believe that orchestras are committed to this long-term because of one season is foolish. They are not that ignorant.

Mahler was not programmed regularly and regarded as a pretentious failure during his life. It was primarily due to long-suffering support from other conductors like Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, and Leonard Bernstein that he is now regarded as the "the great summation of the late Romantic tradition."

By the way, the 1812 will always get a bigger response; it has cannons.

Great post! Just one comment. Let's please make a distinction between the concept of "broadening the pool of qualified applicants" and using race to choose one candidate over another. Every orchestra is obligated to hear all professionally qualified candidates of all races. The more we can do to increase the number of black and Latino applicants, the better (this goes back to my point about conservatory recruitment). As far as I can tell, the controversy is not over trying to encourage more blacks/Hispanics to enter the audition pool. It is whether Player A, who is Hispanic, is chosen over Player B, who is Asian because, while Player B clearly played a better audition, Player A satisfies the desired racial demographic the orchestra is targeting. I am confident that each audition I have won has been based solely on my ability. What would be "psychologically shackling" is the idea that I was given favor in these auditions because of my race. I see myself, and want others to see me, as a musician first and a Hispanic musician second.

Good point Jeff. For clarity, I for one am not convinced that using race alone is the best way to go myself. Committment to the organization, to developing one's craft, manners, empathy, teamwork are not captured within race, nor are these vital characteristics of a desired employeee captured in today's audition process. At the same time, the product orchestras hold up to the public communicates something that is not true, not current, and the public's interest includes a desire to see itself in the product.

The fact, which for decades was denied and now is simply uncelebrated, is that there are highly qualified minority players available for hire. Orchestras should create a way to address this misalignment of belief and practice and the value system erected to make it feel more difficult than it need be. However, the field's collective response is to think about this every February, but ultimately do nothing about it.

Frankly, I see an ostrich with his/her head in the sand, hoping the question itself will go away. Ultimately, it will be a large segment of the audience and donor support that will go away, which will question the quality of our field's long term stewardship of this great symphonic music.

Each of us can only speak from our own experience but I have never heard a black or Hispanic person articulate this view in regards to their personal perception of orchestras. I have sometimes heard Hispanic (and white) people in San Antonio say that the perceived pomp and formality of the concert hall makes them feel out of place, or that they find classical music boring. I don't think either of these has anything to do with the race of the musicians or composers but more to do with the archaic, tired conventions of concert presentation and etiquette. Let's give blacks and Hispanics some credit. Most of us, while strongly tied to our cultural heritage, also want to be part of the greater community and don't attend concerts as "Hispanics" or "blacks" but as music lovers. If we insist on radically restructuring programming to include a certain percentage of black and Hispanic composers, then it should follow that we will have to display a certain percentage of black and Hispanic painters in all of our museums at the expense of other painters. Also, we will have to shelve a statistically appropritate percentage of books in our libraries by blacks and Hispanics at the expense of white authors. More to the point, if we truly want programming to accurately reflect the community, we should also insist on at least a 50/50 ratio of male to female composers. Personally, I don't think this is the solution. Let's do as much as we can to promote diverse, quality programming in addition to (but not at the expense of) our standard repertoire. Let's not forget that there are symphony orchestras through out Latin America and I would venture to guess that the bulk of their programming is very similar to ours.

I heard an NPR story just a couple of days that contained an anecdote that succinctly illustrates my opinion. Lorraine Gordon, the owner of the Village Vanguard jazz club said she had recently received a call from a man asking for a reservation at the club. He wanted to know if the band playing that night was white or black.

"I said 'Excuse me. What difference does it make to you?' I got a little bit nasty, maybe. I said 'I don't understand this question. Are you coming to hear the music or look at colors?'"

It's always nice to read about a success story, and this one is a success on many levels. Thanks for writing about it, Michael.

Yvonne Caruthers

Well, what I am really wondering is what happens when the music is turned back in?? I mean I write a lot in my music and what makes sense to me, might be greek to someone else!! Usually when I get new music it's all clean with no writing in it!! Has someone had this music before? I mean its utterly impossible to not write in your music. But the thing is there are no eraser marks or anything. Does the librarian just have a huge super jumbo eraser and erase everything?? Or does he have little eraser fairies that help him?? I have no idea!! If anybody knows please tell me because it is just bugging me!!!

Allegro Ashley
Milwaukee Youth Symphony Orchestra

I would be interested to know whether the panelists would recommend their current situations to potential new recruits? Have their situations changed since they joined their respective orchestras and do they see them as stable long term situations as regards funding, audience development, renumeration and artistic satisfaction. Are there any specific things North American musicians should be aware of in considering jobs abroad such as lack of acceptance or hostility directed towards foreign musicians. Are language skills a definate issue in non English speaking countries? I have heard that German orchestras are not likely to accept candidates past a certain age because of their government pension fund requirements. Can any of the panelists compare their general working conditions to those which are the norm in North America? I would also be interested in hearing about any biases or differences in playing styles,orchestra politics, internal governance etc. This is a very interesting topic and I would love to see it be covered in more detail.I did enjoy all the personal details which every panelist provided.

Some very good observations here.I have just two quick comments to add. The first is that on many occasions I have been luke warm or uncertain about the merits of a new unfamiliar work only to find that it has grown on me over the course of 3-4 rehearsals and 2-3 performances. Although performers are preoccupied with the demands of their own contributions and don't have the vantage point to fully take in the 'big picture' I often wonder how an audience is supposed to grasp challenging new works on only one hearing?
My second point is my dismay that so few new works I have played in my 30 year career have ever been reprogrammed. Although there are probably more composers than ever I doubt that many works written since the 1960's have found a place in the core symphonic repetoire. Certainly not as many as were written in the first half of the 20th Century.

Hi Kari, actually don't we have 5 weeks vacation and 2 weeks practicing ?

Ms. Sloan's article touches at the core of what I believe to be one of the major problems in American symphony orchestras. The nineteenth-century conservatory idea of replicative teaching (do as I do and don't question) and the equally antiquated idea of the conductor as all-knowing and omnipotent has indeed hurt our profession and severely compromised the promise of truly fulfilling orchestral careers for many. Any long-lasting change to such conditions must begin in the academy.

Ms. Sloan asks, in essence, how teachers and conductors in the academy can change their approach without dashing the dreams and hopes of their students. As an orchestral conductor at a large college of music, I can say that we must begin with the premise that the music itself is our primary motivation for being musicians. Ms. Sloan's article insiunates that the motivation for so many student musicians is to establish a career. They choose certain institutions and certain teachers more to increase their chances to have the career of their dreams, rather than for any significant insight into the music that they will perform. I remember one of many stories of a student oboist from a prestigious conservatory who taped every excerpt from an audition list to the walls of his apartment so all he had to do was turn in a complete circle and play every excerpt successively. This is not music making. This is trade school.

As a conductor I constantly remind my students that an accomplished technique is not an end, but a means to expressing oneself fully. I remind them that they are all important to our effort as an orchestra regardless of where they sit. I remind them that we spend the majority of our time in rehearsal, so we should treat each rehearsal as a marvelous opportunity for discovery, and I remind them that music is a reflection of our humanity. We make music not only for ourselves, but for the benefit of others, including our colleagues. I also make no bones to remind them that we are all responsible for our own happiness and we cannot always blame the conductor, the rehearsal and performance space, etc, for our discontent. Together we make music, not separately. I am proud that our orchestras, including our most advanced graduate students, have discovered that playing in an orchestra and exploring great works with fellow musicians is a joy, not a task. As a result, I find that my students come better prepared because for them playing in the orchestra is enjoyable, challenging for the right reasons, and part of a community in which we all share. High standards are possible without sacrificing self worth and joy.

Yes, one must compete in a ridiculously competitive world to get jobs. But what is it worth if your professional life is one of bitterness? The academy should not only teach young musicians to get jobs, but how to keep them and enjoy them for a lifetime.

I have more of a question rather than a comment. Most of the advice has been for young players coming out of school. The state of American orchestras is quite tenuous now. Would you recommend employment in a German orchestra to an experienced orchestral player of an American orchestra?

I certainly hope that anyone "falling back on an orchestra career" realizes how incredibly lucky they are to have even that! Having chosen to be an orchestra musician since Jr. High School, I never looked upon the job as a second class career. I agree teachers must look to their students and share a little reality with them about what they may and may not be able to do with their musical degree. Too many students look down upon orchestras when they realistically may not even have a chance to win a good paying orchestral position.
I'd like to encourage those teachers that have orchestral experience to share some of that reality with their students as well. I remember comments from a long-ago teacher about the reality of having a job each year and wished that she'd shared some of that information with me before I'd been through a strike and bankruptcy. Nothing would have deterred me from becoming a symphony musician, but at least I would have been a bit more grounded on what to expect.

In practice it is often difficult for applicants over the age of 35 to be invited to auditions. I don't think there is any official limit but it seems that most people getting jobs here are under 35. Of course there are exceptions, especially for concertmaster or solo chairs but in general there seems to be a bias for youth.

Jeff, I've been re-reading this discussion over the past few days and am glad to see that someone has finally pointed out the problem with diversity in orchestras is one of income and class, not of race.

I enjoyed the interview between Greg and Nathan. The tone was rather "softball" - not much dissonance, shall we say. Here's another metaphor - tasty but it could have used a bit more salt.

Did others have trouble with the Final Panel (#9)? Mine aborted after a few seconds of dialogue - more like five-and-a-half seconds instead of five-and-a-half minutes.

I think this format has potential. Interviews with up to 4 participants might yield a good harvest of information and entertainment.

Thanks for this part of the site!

I went back today and was able to view ALL of the Final Panel. Thanks (either to "Poly" for fixing the problem or to my computer for being in a more cooperative mood today).

THANK YOU for addressing this issue! One pedagogical benefit of the "low pressure" concept is to show students the extreme variance in lip pressure, as well as the ever-changing type of pressure used during normal brass playing. Unfortunately, after I direct my students to play a horn that is perched atop a piano to show them they CAN play without attaching a C-clamp between their instrument and the back of their head, they automatically interpret the lesson as meaning all pressure is bad. The nuances to be learned takes a lifetime, and so many budding musicians feel they don't have that kind of time to study their unique phyisicality with approaching the instrument. Yet I am heartened by this article and discussion to keep teaching the benefits of awareness, warmup, healthy playing.

Many years ago, Phil Farkas told me that he truly regretted having put a photograph in his book,The Art of Horn Playing, of himself playing the French horn suspended on a mantle. After the fact, he rethought the subject of mouthpiece pressure and concluded that it is a symptom and not the cause of playing problems. I totally agree.

I always try to deemphasize mouthpiece pressure because the more players intentionally try to adjust it, the more trouble they make for themselves. Without a mouthpiece rim that is also a high-tech pressure-measuring device, it would be impossible for a player to calibrate from one day to the next what mouthpiece pressure renders the best playing results and then be able to duplicate it every time s/he plays. As Mr. Schmalenberger suggests,it is a far wiser approach to instill in students a clear understanding of correct playing mechanics, to which I would add the importance of learning how to avoid overusing the embouchure to the point that it becomes bruised and swollen. As with any endeavor, the more focused you are on what you do when you play, the better and more sustainable the results.

Hi, Steve! When a new theatre opened in Vancouver a number of years ago, there was a large gap in the floor of the pit and inadequate lighting. As a result, a musician broke her wrist when she stepped into empty air. A more recent mishap: after a ballet performance, the sprinkler system went off in the pit when a musician was putting on his coat and accidentally brushed a sprinkler head. There was no protective covering to prevent this. It took about half an hour to get the system turned off. While I'm on a rant, the backstage areas of some theatres are terrible, with no lockers to store valuable instruments in between shows, no hangers for clothes, very little furniture for tired musicians, etc., while the facilities for the dancers or singers are much better. It's like the show "Upstairs, Downstairs". Why is that, or is it just my experience?

I agree with Ethan that sound levels can get very high in the pit (At Michigan Opera we have approached 117 db at times). As a trombonist I have found using earplugs troublesome. They seem to magnify my own sound through vibrations in my head and I can't hear if I'm balancing the rest of the group. Are you familiar with this problem and if so, have you found an earplug which minimizes the effect?

Greg Near (MOT Orchestra/ROPA Delegate)

Just a comment regarding the inadequate room in the orchestra pit. Performing in such close quarters in conjunction with the high level of stress that comes with performing difficult repertoire can lead to volatile relationships with fellow colleagues. Not that this doesn't happen with musicians who play on stage, but I think this problem is exacerbated in a small pit.
Jay Blumenthal

I wanted to mention the increasing vulnerability musicians who perform in a pit face with technological replacement. Any show having a visual component (such as opera, ballet or musicals) is fertile ground for those who wish to save money by hiring fewer musicians. We have been fighting attempts to replace musicians with "virtual orchestra machines." This is a continuing battle.
Jay Blumenthal

Thank you for sharing this valuable information.

In response to Greg Near's question about earplugs, it is true that the more sound they block out, the more they seem to magnify one's own sound and disrupt the ensemble balance. So a compromise seems the best solution: earplugs that don't totally block out the surrounding sound. I don't have a specific recommendation, but they're inexpensive enough for considerable experimentation.

Ann,
We in the Arizona Opera are in the same boat. Serious financial troubles, negotiations off for the summer, and no schedules out yet. Hang in there, girl!

The few years that they did away with using the Symphony for Nutcracker were upsetting. I think our response should be, "How about if next year you hire the orchestra and show a video?!"

I'm on both the orchestra and negotiating committees for Arizona Opera. Would you comment, please, on your break policy? I had a long talk with one of your players as well as with someone from LA Opera who adopted your policy, and it seems to be something we would like to use as well, since we have already lost a player to overuse injury. For the rest of the readers, it insists on 2 breaks in a 3-hour or longer service, and doesn't allow taking it at the end.

Also, if you can give any advice on convincing the rest of the players that this is a good idea, both in terms of reducing injury and improving concentration.

Thanks.

The earplugs the SF opera bought for us are custom-fit to the individual's ear. The people from H.E.A.R. made molds of the ear, and sent them to Westone for fabrication of the plugs. There are three filters available - 9db, 15 db, and 25db. The 9 db filter is the most practical for orchestral playing, I have found. The magnification of one's own sound is apparently called "occlusion", which is supposed to be greatly diminished with these Westone plugs. As a string player, though, I can't comment on whether this is true. Perhaps there are some wind or brass players out there who have tried these plugs?
Anyway, check out the HEAR website:
http://www.hearrecords.com/shop/index.shtml
This link will take you to the description of the earplugs.

I love your Pit Pals project -- we may have to incorporate something like that at the San Francisco Opera. (In my spare time.) We have noticed a marked increase in our audience's response and appreciation of our part of their entertainment since the company put up a kiosk in the lobby with photos of each of us.

I'm really interested in the ideas about making the orchestra more visible, by the pre-concerts, Pit Pals, photos, etc. If any of you would like to share details, they would be appreciated. One of my fellows in AZ Opera and I met with our music director to discuss sending pit musicians out with the educational outreach, and it was received positively, but it hasn't been fleshed out yet. Have any of you done pre- or post-concert lectures/talk-backs?

To amplify Ethan's remarks about NYC Ballet's chamber music series at Lincoln Center and Saratoga, and to respond to Cynthia Baker's curiosity about it, it began 3 years ago as an idea in David Lennon's (our former great Local 802 president's) office. Our committee was there strategizing for our upcoming contract negotiation, when David said he'd like to feature our orchestra in his "Save Live Music" campaign. To that end, our photo ran in print ads in Playbill and other glossies in NY, our members were featured in radio ads run on AM news stations and FM classical stations, and 802 co-sponsored (with our Company) a series of 3 chamber concerts before Sunday matinees in our theater at Lincoln Center. Our Company provided the space and crew; 802 paid the musicians' fees. It was an immediate hit with the audience and the musicians. After that contract negotiation year, I persuaded our mgt to take over paying the artists' fees. They also list our concerts on their website, and print programs (including bios of players) and large posters announcing the series placed in all the lobby areas. This year, we had 6 concerts at Lincoln Center during our spring season and are currently in the middle of 8 that we are producing at the Saratoga Performing Arts Center during our summer season. We have found these concerts to be useful on many levels: the obvious one of increasing our visibility, of course, but also as a morale builder for our musicians'. One aspect of playing in a pit orchestra for a "non-musical" art form is that it is possible for an orchestra to feel undervalued by its management. These concerts go some little way to redressing that, at least for those participating.

All so true, Doug.. but dare I add that there are 'sacrifices' - and great artistic privileges as well, at one remove, of course - which are experienced by the partners / family members of musicians, as well as the performers themselves?

You are right that thre aren't many professions which demand so much for so very little material reward. But partners don't even get the privilege (for such it is) of being 'licensed' to perform at the highest level the most wonderful music ever written; they just get the lonely shift as the babysitters, more often than not.

That grip over, however, I do think there's another aspect to all this which reflects both on the esteem of artists, and on the frequently antequated ways of management: Where's the in-service training and professional development (if only...)?

Managements all seem to find money also to pay performers to become community musicians (which is great); but many of them spend not one cent on maintaining the core function of an orchestral performer - i.e. playing his / her chosen instrument at an international level of expertise.

And then, when the going gets tough, maybe after two decades of service, they put players through the mill. What a way to let people know they have no value... there's always another bright young thing awaiting their turn (and oblivious of the sad fact that the same may well happen to them in due course).

I really do think this dreadful negligence of the very meaning of many orchestral players' existence is a blight both on them as individuals and on the organisations which employ them... a most unfortunate irony, given that it's that very commitment to the music which makes the appalling pay and conditions worthwhile.

I'd be very interested to know what others think, either here or on my own blog (see e.g. this article ).

Thanks again for raising such important matters - and good luck.
Hilary

Yvonne, you've touched on some interesting and important points. When introducing Jessica's statement, you used the word "audition" in a light-hearted way which made me chuckle...we librarians do tend to use that word for the selection process in hiring a new librarian with an orchestra. We'll talk about it like the players do and say, "I'm going to take the librarian audition in X Philharmonic." It may sound silly (and yes, we do have to suffer the jokes from family and friends about speed-bowing and calling out answers to questions about Bruckner from behind a screen) but the reality is perhaps surprising to those who've never been involved in such a process. A number of orchestras actually refer to their librarian search as an audition, and in fact do use a screen for a first round of oral questions. Some orchestras do their selection completely through interviews and looking at someone's experience and references; some orchestras have a testing process, either verbal or written, that can include questions and exercises drawn from any aspect of symphonic or operatic music: keys of major works, common titles for well-known repertoire, versions of symphonies such as those by Bruckner or Mahler, instrumentation for specific pieces, foreign musical terms, copyright issues, available editions, which works are held by which publishers, knowledge of more obscure works, ranges and keys of orchestral instruments, transposition and bowing exercises, copying of inserts, checking parts for errors, answering hypothetical situational questions about preparing for a certain type of concert, explanations about budgeting and licensing, and on and on. (Not that I want to give you all ideas about how to make the hardest test!) But you get the point -- the testing can be lengthy and intense, and pretty stressful!

I'd love to hear more about the software that connects the whole staff of an orchestra....is that OPAS? I've heard about OPAS but I don't know much about it. How does it work?
Yvonne

Are there any other training programs that you know of besides New World's? Yvonne

Are there any standardized guidelines that composers are supposed to follow? (size of paper, staves per page, etc)

Yvonne

Bravo, Margo...I find that in many situations where I'm working with young composers (I teach at Curtis, but often work with orchestras in readings...Winnipeg's last year), the teachers at various institutions do not know what constitutes a well-prepared part. I am forever pointing them to MOLA and its requirements. But you'd be amazed how many professors sit there taking notes while I'm giving info on where to find proper info. I would have thought they would be somewhat aware of this info (which seems to me to be crucial). But I guess [there's still a need to] educate one person or classroom at a time.

Jennifer Higdon, here, again:

I thought you all might like to know that all of the contracts that I have with orchestras for commissions REQUIRE computer-generated parts. Hand-written parts are not accepted. It used to be that when we did hand-copied parts, composers were required, in their schooling, to take manuscript classes, to learn proper notation (and to learn how to write clearly). Now that we have computers, for some reason, notation classes have gone out the window, although they're still very much needed. I don't think a lot of composers realize that it's not enough for the music to look engraved; all aspects of the formatting must be correct (page turns seem to be a real stumbling point). I do wish we still had those classes. -Jennifer

I agree with you Jennifer, those classes are still very much needed! As one of our librarian colleagues is fond of saying, "A computer doesn't make a bad copyist a good copyist. It might look prettier, but there will still be problems -- just different problems than with hand manuscript." Here at the Dallas Symphony we routinely add some specific language to commissioning agreements for less-experienced and less-established composers than yourself about how the parts must be prepared, but we can't of course go into the detail that would be needed to teach someone how to notate the parts correctly. This is where MOLA and the librarians are trying to jump into the breach with some educational tools like the brochure that Margo mentioned, seminars, articles, etc. It's like tilting at windmills, though, so whatever you and your professional colleagues can do through the universities and conservatories would be a great help to everyone in the long run. I must say, we appreciate it tremendously when we get materials like yours that are so well-prepared, and it pays off in smoother rehearsals and better performances. Which is the ultimate goal.

Karen

There is a wonderful program at the Civic Orchestra of Chicago which is a training orchestra associated with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. This program is a little different than that of NWS.

The Fellowship Librarian at Civic is in charge of all aspects of music preparation from beginning to end instead of assisting a professional which is how many librarians learn their craft. Saying that, the Civic Librarian is mentored by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra Librarians who share their professional expertise, support, guidance and opionions as needed. He or she also has the opportunity to work with Chicago Symphony musicians and guest conductors, gain experience overseeing extra help/assistants in the library, attend MOLA conferences... the list of valuable opportunities goes on and on.

I must admit I am a little biased as I was a past Civic Librarian (and player) and am indebted to this program for the training received that has helped me to succeed in the professional orchestral world.

Solo bows: you have hit on a sore subject for many people. I would add, Please don't give solo bows to the same people as a matter of habit, when in some cases, they hardly had anything significant to play. Don't forget the solo cellist or solo harpist just because their solo wasn't in the treble register or consisted of chords instead of melody. Good articles, people!

Great posts, all.

I have another to add. If you are new, don't diss your predecessor. It could be that the players actually felt favorably toward that person. Let your work and integrity speak for themselves. That's what we players have to do.

And echoes to the comments about good technique. We just finished a week with a previous conductor who is so clear we were able to really make music, without the stress of worrying about tempo changes, going with the flow of changing from subdivisions to large beat patterns, etc. What a joy!

Great points! An orchestra really plays its best when it feels like it is a cohesive unit. We are all on the same team, and if we feel like we are, the audience will feel that too.

Wow, this is an interesting discussion!

It seems as though many conductors missed the first day of conducting school- "One is Down."

What I would like from conductors is a simple, clear downbeat in every bar. Do whatever you want the rest of the time, just show me "1".

My personal pet peeve, as a violist, is conductors who talk to a section while we're playing. I have a large viola 1 inch from my ear, making lots of sound. But more to the point, I have a large reverberating wooden box tucked under my chin bone, and I'm receiving additional sounds through bone conduction.

There's really not a chance that I will hear what you have to say, and we waste so much time tapping the folks on the front stand to try to find out what direction we missed.

If you want to tell us something, wait until you've stopped us, or remind the principal to ask about a point so it can be repeated to all. Don't assume any of us past the first stand have heard a word you said!

I wanted to be a conductor very badly. I took French Horn lessons, trumpet lessons, bassoon lessons, flute lessons; I played clarinet already, a few trombone lessons, and talked to every player I could find about their instruments and the problems connected with them. Unfortunately or fortunately, I was too accomplished a violinist to have the time to devote to conducting. I can play and listen to all that is going on because I study the scores before rehearsing the music we are to play, which is more than many conductors do.!!!

After sitting in an orchestra for 60 years I feel that I know what the musicians WANT to see. We have many "charletons" in front of orchestras these days. Robert McNally

So far everything I have read here on this topic makes absolute sense to any professional musician. I would recommend this page, with every single comment, to any aspiring conductor, or conducting student, or even a professional conductor who wonders why faces glaze over at his/her rehearsals.....

One comment I have not seen yet is this: many of the older and (in my opinion) greater conductors used to say at a dress rehearsal (which had an evening concert on the same day), "Please, don't play fortissimo: save your lips for tonight" (of course meaning brass and woodwind embouchures, and also perhaps the endless string tremolos in Bruckner, etc.). We NEVER hear that today in the orchestra I play in.

Thanks for this interesting discussion.

One more quality that inspires an orchestra to give its best: TRUST.

A recent young conductor trusted us enough NOT to rehearse an encore with us (there was very little time left in the one rehearsal he was given for an entire program). Result: a fiery performance and gratitude from the orchestra for the confidence he showed in himself, and the trust in our ability to respond to him.

If you are a conductor who has never played a wind instrument, LEARN HOW TO BREATHE with your upbeats; audibly and purposefully. Doesn't have to be vulgarly loud, but giving a token, shallow intake of air or even none at all leaves wind players gasping.

Great comments, Craig - I second all of them. May I ammend comment #5 to a Specific String Problem Alert: String players have learned to color their sound without changing bowings. Instead of automatically changing the bowing, it would be better if a conductor were to let us know what s/he wanted: Louder? More attack? More legato? Don't just automatically change the bowings (especially if you aren't a string player to begin with). It never ceases to amaze me how many pianists/oboists/percussionists will jump to change a bowing. Conversely, one of the best conductors I've played under almost never changed bowings. He was a violinist.

This isn't confined to classical musicians. How many rock stars have you heard of who have more money, fame, creative control and girls than they could ever want, and yet they're depressed, unfulfilled, and turning to drugs.

The fact is that musicians tend to be unhappy people striving for a never-attained perfection (this goes double for classical - though there's plenty of room for individual creativity, it tends to be narrow compared to music involving actual improvisation). No matter how much compensations you give, how much attention and stroking of the ego, people who want to be miserable will be, and people who want to maintain a positive attitude will.

Look at orchestral musicians, rock stars, conductors, soloists - you name it. Despite vast differences in lifestyle and working conditions, they tend to have something restless in them, and have major complaints about their "success."

Yes, I'm making sweeping generalisations, as does any article on this topic.

One more thought: what we do is REALLY DIFFICULT. There's no getting past that.

Most of us are struggling day in and day out to play up to our personal standards, and frankly, when we fall short we end up in a bad mood.

It's a great job, but can be emotionally difficult if you don't learn to put it in perspective and not beat yourself up. I think for many that's the hardest part.

Well, that and the sudden independence and feeling of disconnectedness when you actually start your first job. Guess that also depends on where that first job is...

Where is interview with Alan Hopper re Jacksonville Symphony?
Thanks,
Willis Page

Thanks for sending an email to me inviting me to join this discussion. I have to say, that I have had the distinct pleasure to be a guest soloist with several of the contributors above. In each case, be it standard repertoire or new works for piano and orchestra, they were right on the money as conductors. I have heard many stories about how difficult it is for conductors and soloists to match interpretations. Especially with working with a new friend, it can seem unnerving at first. However, I was lucky to have studied with a stickler for rhythm, Adele Marcus, who herself played with Stravinsky. She said that he was a stickler down to a sixteenth note rest! She was a master with concerti, since most of her students perform(ed) with many orchestras around the world. I am compassionate toward my conductor colleagues, in that they have to hold the orchestra together, and I have to be sure that they can follow what I do as easily as possible. (I love Andrew's essay above!) My credo has always been, just let the music play itself, and make the concerto like chamber music, no matter the piece. I also make sure to know the orchestra part inside out before I get to the city I am performing in. I used to record the orchestra part (second piano) and play along with it to understand the collaboration. It always makes sense when we put it all together. There have been times when a conductor needs to do certain things, depending on the orchestra, their abilities, and the conductors way with the baton or hands. I make sure to adapt to these deviations, and most times, I am happier with the result than if I stuck to my guns on tempi etc. That's what music is all about.

"It's astonishing how much orchestras are tied to what they have done or heard in the past rather than what is written on the page. These "traditions" are some of the worst things about classical music as they hamper true individualism."

It's so great to hear a conductor say this. Too many musicians have no idea what's in a score or what a composer actually wrote, and simply judge by what they think they like.

I like this post as well as all the others. But I'd like to respond here both as a freelancer and a string player. I'm afraid that in the freelance world the days of the conductor-as-tyrant are NOT gone. Orchestal players frequently must deal with a take-it-or-leave-it situation, and have much less leverage and recourse even in union gigs. Perhaps even worse is pure incompetence, where the musicians must make music is spite of a "conductor" who truly has no business standing in front of any orchestra.

As a violinist, I have two specific bugaboos:
1. Many conductors are sensitive to the needs of wind and brass players and their chops. But they seem to regard string players as machines or beasts of burden, who shouldn't have any problem say, playing endless passages of tremulo at forissimo at all rehearsals.

2. It is infuriating to get a violin lesson from a conductor who is not a string player. "It has to be softer, therefore you must play it at the point". Really? Why necessarily? Because someone told you you would impress us professional string players with knowledge you don't have? Just tell us articulately the effect you want, and let the concertmaster and other principals figure out how to give it to you. If I conducted (and I've done a tiny bit) I would never presume to tell wind and brass players how to tongue or breathe. I would just say "I need this effect. Can you give it to me?"

Well, after all my griping, let me say that I have also worked with some fine coductors - and what a pleasure it is!

A very interesting topic indeed!

I am a very young and very inexperienced conductor, but have had the good fortune of leading some very revered ensembles. My experience on the podium with these groups has taught me many things... one of which is that it is impossible to please everyone. Every musician comes to work with a unique idea of what their own job is, and what a conductor's job should be.

For Mr. Eddins, and the musician he mentions, clarity is of utmost importance. For other musicians that I have spoken with, they would rather someone who will bring something special to the table. Some conductors make up a great deal for their lack of technique with a strong musical personality, that can still get the musicians playing exactly the way they want. There are also many conductors who are as "clear" as day, but who lack any sense of what music really is. And then there are the unfortunate ones that have neither. (maybe not so unfortunate if they are working!)

Working as a staff conductor of major orchestras, I have had an incredible opportunity to watch countless guest conductors, with varying degrees of technique, personality, and musicianship. What always amazes me is the incredibly vast difference of opinions among the musicians toward any one conductor.

Working with a professional orchestra for the first time as a young conductor is quite a unique experience, as I'm sure all the panelists with concur with. My own initiation was, I think, a typical one; I was very nervous, and the orchestra was a mixed bag of restless, jaded and annoyed... although many were supportive. As I have had more opportunities to lead professional groups, I have become more comfortable with myself (specifically with my own outlook on what the relationship between a conductor and orchestra should be, and how to go about getting the music out of a group without spoiling the relationship) as well as my understanding of conducting technique.

In the end, a conductor can only be themselves.

Most of this relationship spoiling that I've seen stems from a lack of humility, confidence, and a desire to learn; a conductor acting too much like "The Maestro," and conversely, a conductor being too nice or a push-over... both of which put an enormous barrier between the conductor and the orchestra. Since my little experience in front of orchestras has mostly been in a learning situation, with a teacher telling you everything you're doing wrong in front of the group you're supposed to be in charge of, my approach has always been to learn from the ensemble in front of me (not necessarily to cater my words or ideas, but just to have a better sense of what I need to improve on, either for that rehearsal or for life in general) and to be myself! This is difficult since one has to have a context for it, but I was lucky enough to have an amazing teacher who "showed me the way." And having that context should also give a conductor a sense of where they can be firm and assertive in their ideas. Without that, a conductor will seem condescending to the orchestra, and that never works.

Confidence, humility, and the desire to learn. Only then, I think, will a conductor's full potential for musicianship, scholarship, and technique be realized, and a healthy relationship with an orchestra be formed.
--
Tito Muñoz
Assistant Conductor, The Cleveland Orchestra

This is a refreshing take.

My dream gig has always been New York's Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, precisely because it (theoretically) fosters just this sort of inclusiveness and respect. Aside from their most famous practice (conductor-less-ness), Orpheus' most important innovation is that of rotating the leadership roles within the orchestra. I don't know why this sensible practice hasn't become the industry standard.

My take on conductors is that, while they often have pretty good musical understanding and contribute to good interpretation, their role is primarily serves the interests of efficiency, secondarily that of branding and marketing, and only incidentally that of interpretation. (In this regard; how refreshing to hear her give credence to an orchestra's established traditions rather than demand, as appears elsewhere in this discussion, that each first rehearsal of a work be some kind of tabula rasa.)

As a young student, many years ago, I listened to lots of records of the two pre-eminent string quartets of the day; the Juilliard and the Guarneri. I loved both. Too simplistically of course, but nevertheless useful for my purpose at the time, I always thought them as epitomizing the contrapuntal, and the homophonic or blended, approaches, respectively. Style.

On my efficiency assertion; of course, it just costs too much money to allow time for 50 or 100 interpreters to reach consensus. So we create an arbiter. Re marketing etc.: our culture values notions of hero and celebrity, so we offer the public one such person as our identity. On interpretation, we usually play it the way we like it anyway. Hopefully, this is in accord with the way the conductor wants to hear it; often, our job is to convince them it is, after which they congratulate themselves on their terrific ideas. Just kidding...

As much as I like JoAnn's perspective, I have rarely seen it truly realized as antiquated notions of hierarchy, aristocracy, and general inequality of persons, are so ingrained in our culture, our traditions and our thinking, as to allow it. Too often, instead of the respect discussed above, one sees contempt, particularly for the section string musician. And not just from conductors. Or maybe not even primarily from conductors. Orchestral musicians (principals, usually) are far harder on their lessers than most conductors these days.

I applaud JoAnn for thinking counter to these well established trends but am skeptical that she has much hope of seeing her ideas realized in any meaningful way. Given the constraints of the system within which we all operate, her notions might best manifest in a "philosopher king" (queen, obviously) or "enlightened despot" situation. Better than brutal dictator of course, but still pretty limited.

Hope I'm wrong.

"Extensive discussions about bowings can be irritating for all and are usually unnecessary had the preparatory work been done properly in the first place."

Fair point. As a principal violist (or "lead viola operator" on bad days) I try to get everything right in advance. But it's impossible to anticipate what changes might be necessary due to tempo or dynamic changes from the last performance, so some changes likely will be necessary even in standard repertoire. And, as different bowings produce different results, the conductor's input might be sought as well.

It's a misconception that unified bowings are about appearances. Bowings make a large (albeit subtle) difference to how a performance sounds, so it's important to get them right.

Robert Levine

There are two areas that I have not seen mentioned. The very small length of time to prepare the orchestra for what is coming up: changes in dynamics, entrances or cues, even if it is only a glance to the section or the orchestral soloist. And using the stick to convey a certain mood. I also have a question. Why is it that many orchestra Brass are late, and tend to "ooze" into the attack? I have always contended that the players need a good beat to "react" to. Very often it doesn't exist. Thanks.

Sam, thanks very much for your article. I share your opinion that the musicians are the primary source for audience building and sustaining ideas.

Clarity is a two-edged sword. There are times when it's absolutely essential to be clear, but too much can dull everyone's senses.

When I lived in Chicago I often worked with players from the Lyric Opera Orchestra. I'd hear about a guest conductor that they all loved -- the best they've had in years. Then I'd go to a performance. They orchestra sounded ragged, out of tune, lackluster.

Then I'd hear about the next conductor who was a real jerk. Can't follow him, never gives a clear beat, etc. etc. I'd go to the performance and the orchestra played like Gods.

So when the same players would compliment me on being easy to follow, I would get a sort of queasy feeling in my stomach.

My teacher, Kyrill Kondrashin, often said that you should never make an orchestra feel too comfortable when you conduct (Geoffrey Moull: you might remember this, too!) -- always keep them a bit on the edge of their seats. It's hard to find that balance, but a little vagueness goes a long way towards urging the orchestra to listen more closely to their sections and the overall ensemble.

One further anecdote, if I may. I once saw Karajan conduct, and he did his usual kneading-the-invisible bread with his eyes closed. Suddenly there was an ensemble problem. His eyes shot open and he conducted a perfectly clear 4/4 pattern until everybody got back on track, at which point he shut his eyes and continued.

Steve Larsen

Additions to Michael Sullivan (professor, not profession), clarinetist. He played 2nd Clarinet with the Arizona Opera Orchestra. Memorial page on azooma.org

Great topic! I've observed this growing trend for years, and I don't know what to make of it. I'll be following this discussing with great interest.

Yvonne Caruthers

Seeking help about an embouchure condition. Anyone out there with ideas please let me know. My problem is different, and I don't know if I should be worried or not.
I have played Trombone, Euphonium and Tuba for many years, and I'm 38 years old.
I just recently started playing French Horn to help out our local community band. I've discovered that there is a set of muscles in my cheeks that are being worked for the first time that were not used as much playing low brass. I've been playing Horn for about 3 months now, at least once a week. Within the last week, those muscles have become permanently sore, and hurt when I smile. I've heard of permanent injuries to the cheek muscles that put trumpet players out of business, so I thought I should be asking questions. I'm still able to play, but I don't know if I should lay off for a while, or what therapy is recommended.
If you have any advice, I'd be happy to hear it. If you know of someone I should talk with, please let me know.
Thanks so much,
Brian Bergman,
Astoria, Oregon

Hi Brian-

I think Cindy Lewis's ideas are good, but don't get too far ahead of yourself. You don't mention if you've taken any lessons from a horn player-- the horn is really drastically different from the low brass instruments you are accustomed to playing. I think the first step is to find a horn teacher in the area, perhaps someone who works primarily with beginners and explain your situation to them. In my experience, those are the teachers who know what to look for in an embouchure, and how to start a player off "right." They might be able to give you the minor tips you need for a healthy, functioning embouchure. You also don't mention if you are switching between the instruments on a weekly basis, which might create some sort of "chop confusion." While the large concepts are greatly the same (buzz and blow!) the mouthpieces are not. I am a horn player, and haven't ever played low brass instruments, but I think that you will have to think of a narrower stream of air than on the tuba and trombone. Just based on what you've written, I'm going to guess that you may be over-engaging your cheek muscles in an attempt to vibrate a larger portion of your embouchure to force "too much air" through the horn. I don't think you are broken by any means, but do proceed with caution. Good luck!

L.

I asked Bruce about his use of SVO (straight vegetable oil) in his cars and he explained:

One car has a conversion kit from Greasecar.com and one car has a conversion kit from Fossilfreefuel.com. Both are good systems and work well, but I prefer the Fossilfreefuel kit. I installed both of them myself, which saved money. The Greasecar system was around $1200 and the Fossilfreefuel kit was around $2300.

The colleagues of our AZOOMA webmaster, Bruce Hemd, are indeed very lucky to have someone of his caliber both intellectually and technically to design and maintain our Arizona Opera Orchestra musicians assoc. website. As he describes in a recent Polyphonic.org article, this effort was a huge boon to our 'presence' in the state of Arizona. I have played in this orchestra since 1985 (with a break in the early 90's) and he is correct that the opera-going public really didn't then and doesn't now realize who we are. Originally, Arizona Opera was Tucson Opera and all of the musicians were from Tucson. As the company expanded into the Phoenix area (some 25 to 30 years ago), more Phoenix area musicians joined our ranks as have some from Flagstaff. The Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff Symphonies have well-defined identities in their communities as they "are" the show. Since we are in the pit, the action on stage is where the focus is. We do at least one production a year (this year it was the Gems (opera highlights) concert) where we are on the stage, accompanying the solo/groups of singers, but this is not our main venue.

I'm sure that other dedicated pit orchestras (as opposed to those musicians who do pit work in addition to their regular symphony season) must have the same issues.

Margaret Gilmore,
AZ Opera Orchestra
Former ROPA delegate

Thanks for your wonderful first-hand account Charles. The photos are great, and your perspective about the first China trip added a lot too.

Yvonne Caruthers

Same question for you Bridget that I asked Claire--how did you get from your first concert to becoming a group that knew it would have a season? I think that's a crucial first step and hopefully the two of you will have some solid advice for others who are thinking about "taking the plunge."

Yvonne

Do you have any engineers in your family? Did you take "shop" classes in middle or high school? I have trouble talking to a car mechanic, I'm not sure I'd have known how to talk to the folks at a machine shop...any advice?

Yvonne

Bravo, bravo, Claire! What an inspiring post! My question is for you and for Bridget -- can you please tell us in detail HOW you went from the first $605 concert to being a group that knew it would have a season the following year? I think that's the hard part.

Yvonne

I think there's a key sentence in there, Kate: "having a good head for business and being extremely well organized".....can you give us some details about those? (singing in the car is a good example of using every second of your time...) Do you have to file complicated tax forms? Any suggestions for juggling work and family when you don't have a "regular" schedule?

Yvonne

I took the liberty today of passing along to Marcia Farabee your kind comments about her. She told me that you have customized Finale--can you give us some details about that? Maybe it's because I don't use it on a daily basis, but I find it to be a bit slow and clumsy. Do you also have experience with Sibelius?

Yvonne

I've seen your publications, Chuck, and I think what you've done is a great example of seeing what needs to be done and then doing it. I know you exhibit your publications several times a year...can you talk about that a little bit? Readers might not think of that aspect.

Yvonne

I love your story about how you got into career services at NEC. Are there other schools that you think are doing a good job in this area as well? (besides Eastman....which hosts Polyphonic!!)

Thanks for pointing out that the old stereotypical musician is SO old school. The generation that is entering the music scene today is very different than one or two generations ago.

Yvonne

I'll chime in here a little on the act of customizing Finale or Sibelius. What computer notation programs have done is to allow everyone to have mediocre looking music. The professionals, like Douglas, know engraving rules and follow them in their scores--when to use italics in text, what goes above the staff, what below, how steep are the beams on eighth-notes, etc. Publishers want their music to have a look that is identifiable, so they may use unique fonts and go into the preferences to tweak the program to their liking. I have several publications with Advance Music, a German publisher. They are VERY particular about the look and quality of their publications, and have spent a lot of time customizing their Finale software. So--the lesson is if you want to move from amateur to professional looking scores and parts, get a good book, like Music Notation in the Twentieth Century by Kurt Stone. It's from 1980 but still a good source.

Angela what advice do you give your students who are looking for that rare orchestral position? How do you prepare them for a future that may be different than what they had hoped for or envisioned?

Claire, your business skills are impressive! Can you give us an idea of how you developed those skills? Where did you learn to write a grant? Did you have formal training or were you self taught?

Do you self-publish (Kinko's comes to mind..) or were you able to get a publisher interested? If you have a publisher, what sort of process did you go through to find one?

Yvonne

Do music schools teach notation using computer software? That seems to me like it would be a big plus.

Yvonne

Thanks for your detailed reply, Kate. One of the purposes of this panel discussion is to get as much info out to readers as we can, and your comments are very helpful.

Yvonne

I like the contrast between your organization, Claire, and projects like Chuck's. Yours came from a personal vision, Chuck's came from an existing need. You've both been successful, proving there is room for lots of creativity in entrepreneurship.

And thanks for all the details you provided. Somewhere a reader is thinking, "How could I make this happen for my project?" and they could follow what you've written and see how to get started.

Yvonne

I see a generation gap about entrepreneurship and/or self-promotion. Musicians who are my age (mid-50's) were trained to think they shouldn't have to move a chair or a stand. Musicians a generation younger think it's fine to sing, dance, play 2-3 instruments, change costumes, etc. -- whatever it takes to get their message across. Self promotion? They are masters at it, hence the popularity of websites like MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, etc.

Yvonne

The term "customizing" a software program is a little misleading to folks who are not overly familiar or comfortable using such programs. What I (and many, many other people) do is customize the way our output looks. Perhaps it will be easier to think of it (instrumentally speaking) as a matter of performing in a particular style.

Ray is right about various publishers having specific looks. A term one hears frequently is "house style" - meaning the specific parameters that make a publisher's (or copyist's) product look a certain way. Everyone has idiosyncrasies that make their work either good or bad... I personally try to create a product that is accurate, makes musical sense, is agreeable to look at, and extremely easy to use in performance. If someone has a particular requirement, I will do my best to accommodate, so long as it does not impede the readability of the final product (or cause any sort of confusion).

I know that schools offer courses in use of notation software, Yvonne. I honestly do not know much about the courses, though from what I have heard, it seems to amount to introductory material. There is quite a difference, however, between reading a manual and understanding the specifics about creating useful output. I deal with other people's work frequently. There is a wide spectrum of output quality, to be sure.

If I were to give a course in how to use a notation program, we would certainly read the manual (always a great place to start), but in addition to the whole manual thing, the first 4-6 weeks would be using pen and ink with ridiculous amounts of hand copywork... learning layout, visual phrasing, proper placement, etc. Then we would start applying the program to solving the same riddles - seeing what it is capable of and how to deal with things that seem to cause so much apparent grief (harp parts, trap set, more complex notation). As with most situations, knowing how to use a tool avoids problems in the long run. Remember the first time you used that belt sander in the hallway? Even if you never had that experience, you know exactly what I am talking about...

Douglas

Bruce Hembd here.

As of 3/28 AZOOMA and the Arizona Opera have a tentative agreement. The contract goes to a ratification vote in mid-April.

One other thing, our web site is AZOOMA.org, not "dot com" as noted in the Editor's introductory comments.

Thanks for your comment! As far as the business skills go, I really think that some of it is innate and a great deal of it is learned. Every successful entrepreneur I know is a self-made person, and despite their success story I think that if you really get them talking, they'll all tell you that they made a lot of mistakes along the way. I believe that it is in those mistakes (and in the growth that comes from acknowledging those mistakes) that we become who we are, and we realize that we each have something unique to contribute.

I was always interested in business as a kid - I started a little bread-making business in my neighborhood when I was 12, and delivered bread weekly to about 25 houses, and with that money was able to go Interlochen to study for a summer. But the ICE business stuff - the grants, the managerial strategies, etc - was all trial-by-error. You try something, it doesn't work, you figure out what doesn't work, you pick yourself back up, and you try again with a different strategy. The important part of this process is figuring out what doesn't work, anaylzing it, and turning an obstacle into an opportunity, right there on the spot.

As far as the actual grant-writing goes, my advice is very simple: get your hands on and carefully read winning proposals. Lots of them. Most people and many organizations are happy to give you copies of successful grants they've written. The same goes for business plans, contracts, bylaws, nonprofit applications, and even board meeting minutes. Most organizations are happy to pass this on to friends, colleagues and mentees. Reading through this material and learning how other groups organize themselves, describe their goals, and deal with conflicts is incredibly instructive. And it's fascinating, too!

I see an opportunity here: take Ray's comments and turn them into a poster. These are inspiring words!

Yvonne

Do you have a list of entrepreneurs-in-orchestras from around the country? That would be a great resource for all of us.

Yvonne

Your comment about "suddenly" being an expert reminds me of what Norman Scribner (a Washington DC choral conductor) told me years ago: "You work like a dog for about a dozen years before someone calls you an overnight sensation."

Thanks for giving us the specifics of self-publishing, Chuck. Many of those steps wouldn't have occurred to me.

Yvonne

I just got an email from ICE, Claire's organization. Here she is responding to our panel questions while 3 days from now she's playing several solos in the latest ICE production in NYC.

www.iceorg.org if you'd like to see the details.

Yvonne

I'm enjoying reading all this! It's energizing and inspiring on many levels. The connecting threads I've noticed are:

1. the importance of saying "yes"!

2. having imagination

3. growing the vision/project over time - taking a long range view and celebrating incremental progress (Claire describes this very well)

4. finding mentors

5. a willingness to dive headlong into a project and learn as you go because schools don't provide all the necessary training (and can't)

6. dealing well with limitations - constraints spurring people on to interesting possibilities

7. taking care of business: finding methods to handle the practical issues of scheduling, finances, taxes and building these habits into one's routine

8. dealing with changes over time (new notation programs and options, changing family needs)

Best, Angela

Greetings Ms. Beeching from a graduating Eastman student! I have your "Beyond Talent" and what an incredibly well written and easy to understand piece of writing! I use it ALOT. Next year I will be writing a sort of etude book for violin/viola concentrating on rhythms/coordination of the hands. Any advice on how to start or who to get help from? Thank you!

Thank you, Bridget, for this advice. As an internationally minded arts-oriented college student today, I have constantly realized how very important it is to think on a global level - to see how other cultures express themselves, and how that relates to the way we in turn express ourselves. By studying the "other" ways in which people make and live out art and music, I have found that the "other" is not that different than "self," and that fundamentally we have more in common than we may have supposed. Music is a universal language, and in delving into the stories everyone has to tell through the arts and music, one is essentially led to a better understanding of the world.

Thanks, and I'm glad you've found the book helpful. It's great you've got a book project on the horizon! My advice would be:

1. Do your research: find out what's out there already and analyze it - what's good, what's great, what do you like and WHY; what don't you
like and WHY!

2. Talk to lots of teachers about the texts they use and why. Go outside your comfort zone - contact a bunch of Eastman alumni and network! You'll need all this research and input to help you offer a text that's useful to a wide range of folks. It will also allow you to speak with some authority on the topic.

3. Eventually, as you make a draft/proto-type of the book, you should have a few mentor teachers who will go over it with you and give you candid and constructive suggestions.

4. Remember: Most of writing is actually re-writing! It's about the process: discovery, learning, and honing a message. It's fascinating
but not a pursuit for the impatient.

My book, in the end, took a lot of years of work and revising and now I'm supposed to be working on a revised edition - so here we go again!

Best of luck with your project!
Angela

This article is magnificent Maestro Rex. I thoroughly enjoyed it. As Eugene Drucker has already done, you can easily write a book any time you want. I'm sure it would be fascinating.

If I'm not mistaken, this only touches the tip of the iceberg. Orchestra tours can be very complicated - Jeen can easily write a book about it. I got lost in Stuttgart while on tour in Germany several years ago. I only knew two words in German ("street" and "hotel"), but that was enough to get me to the tour bus leaving to Munich, barely on time.

Ann,
This is so cool. Thanks for the article and you go girl!!!!
Hope to see you this summer.
Hugs,
Leslie Ann

Interesting perspective on how movie shoots are like rehearsing due to the repetition. What fun, and thanks for sharing the experience

many of the orchestras in which i play now have contract clauses specifying that the musician is required to provide his or her own practice facilities away from the employer's premises; i think this is supposed to help establish the "employer's convenience"

The turning down of the US economy is the main reason of everything. This public predicament has been the major problem of everybody. Many Americans are looking for sunlight in the current economic crisis, but take heart that there is always light at the end of the tunnel. 2008 taught us a lot of lessons, and 2009 is going to be the year when it all starts to rebound. Many people are looking into making more sound financial decisions - especially about spending and savings habits. Check out this article if you, too, are searching for good news during these dark days or to read more on [l=http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2008/12/31/more-good-news-on-the-economy-and-payday-loans/][/l]

For how many years can disallowed home expenses be carried forward?

Generally, unallowed home office expenses carry forward until you sell the home. Perhaps the greater concern is that it is good to show a profit for a sole proprietor in at least 3 of every 5 years. With disallowed home office expense carry forwards, there would not be profit shown on the return for some amount of consecutive years.

excellent information. I wish I could have taken the class

I worked with a conductor who only called my concertmaster. I had no name. I guess I should have called him "conductor" or "baton-man". He was very rude.

Men who are uncomfortable with the shoulder pads in their tuxes should consider getting in touch with one of the makers of tuxes for competitive ballroom dancers. These tuxes are specifically made so that the shoulders don't bunch when the arms are raised. They are also made of lighter materials.

Excellent article. As a musician with an interest in arts administration, it sheds light on aspects of the administrative side of the equation that I was not even aware of.

David S. Naden

I cannot agree more about 'venting' -- it's unproductive at best, and at worst, destroys morale.

However, since I have a feeling about how a fellow music student could interpret this article, I have to add: say whatever you want about conductors, but they generally do more score study than all members of the student orchestra combined will ever do in their college careers. If one is going to challenge the conductor's artistic judgment (I have difficulty imagining a situation in which this would be appropriate, but I'll grant that there probably is one), the work had better be there to back it up.

Can't you be both altruistic and pragmatic?

18 months later- we still get a lot of positive comments-including from members of management- on the AZOOMA website. The "Out of the Pit" chamber music concerts begun in the 08-09 season were well received. The concerts got us some publicity and some reviews. Recently we launched our Facebook page. Educating the audience about who we are and what we do is for us an ongoing process.
Katherine Shields,
AZ Opera Orchestra
Outreach Concerts

Low priced student tickets/kids free with adult purchase are a great idea. Now a parent, I'm always surprised when venues don't have children's prices. In my informal poll for a recent article, a "deal" for family entertainment was $10 or less.

I just talked to Priscilla Stevens last week and was shocked to learn of Milt's death. I had the priviledge of knowing Milt, first as my late husband, Dale Fredericks' teacher and friend. Later, we both played with The Christian Performing Arts Orchestra, when Milt conducted for a Kennedy Center performance of Resphigi's "Ancient Airs and Dances."
The violin part is challenging, and I remember Milt rehearsing the strings in the most loving, gentle and respectful way of, probably, any conductor I've ever played under. When we repeatedly butchered some of the more rhythmic passages, the only thing Milt said, so empathetically, was, "too bad", and we tried again. Having played under some, shall we say, difficult conductors, I'll never forget playing for Milt. His example is an inspiration to me in my own teaching to this day.
When Dale was tragically murdered in a carjacking, on June 11, 1993, coming home from the Friday night parade at Marine Barracks in SE Washington, DC, Milt was the one who called the area trombonists to play for the funeral. The players he organized were magnificent in their glorious musical tribute to Dale.
Milt was extremely helpful to me, later, as I struggled to decide what to do with Dale's music, mouthpieces, instruments, mutes, cases, etc. As shocking as Dale's death was, and still is to me, I was again shocked to learn that Milt died, also, so unexpectedly and prematurely. They are both greatly missed.

The reference to in-ear headphones is completely misinterpreted. On the contrary, in-ear noise isolating headphones are generally recommended by most studies, including Fligor's who concluded that users tend to exceed much less the recommended levels when using in-ear noise isolating headphones. In-ear headphones are more dangerous only if you listen at loud volume levels, but the purpose of noise-isolating headphones is completely the opposite: to allow users to turn down the volume and actually listen at safer volume levels than with normal headphones!

Even the article you mentioned says in fact:

"Five Ways to Save Your Ears

3. Get better headphones: Those that shut out external noise allow you to turn down the tunes. In-ear phones like Etymotic's ER6 ($139) and Shure's E4C ($299) go deep into the ear canal to block pretty much all outside noise".

And at http://www.physorg.com/news80304823.html :

"In a separate study to be presented at the conference, Fligor and Ives observed the listening habits of 100 doctoral students listening to iPods through earphones. When the students were in a quiet environment, they found that only 6 percent of them turned their players to risky sound levels. When in a noisy environment, a dramatically higher 80% of the students listened to the music at risky levels. When they used an "in-the-ear" earphone designed to block out background noise, only 20 percent exceeded sound levels considered to be risky. This suggests, Fligor says, that seeking out quiet environments and using "isolator" earphones designed to block out background noise help listeners avoid the tendency to play music at sound levels that can pose risks to their hearing."

Hi!
I need help on how to recover from my injury. I got it about a month and a half ago from a festival band. Since then I havent been able to take a serious break because of rehearsals and concerts. At this point my embouchure is pretty bad, to the point that air is leaking out between my corners and my embouchure. My range, which went up and a above a high c is now only up to an a flat. It also feels like I have a small indentation on the left side of my embouchure, probably from too much mouthpiece pressure. I know I need to equalize the mouthpiece on my lip, but I don't know what to do to get back into playing shape. I'm going to college next year for horn, and I'm terrified of having to start in the shape that I'm in. PLEASE help me.

I like this article, thanks!

thanks for the great post. after reading your post i thinking about my own relation ship with our company marketing director. There a lot of thing that i am going to change. Thanks for the great article again ;)