I just read the following news report:
In an article in today's Chicago Tribune, John von Rhein discusses Riccardo Muti's speaking to the CSO audience for applauding after the third movement of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony. "Muti's unspoken point was that their premature applause, though well intentioned, broke the musical continuity and hidden program Tchaikovsky built into his final masterpiece. Some audience members no doubt found his comments condescending, but he made a valid point without bullying the newbies; and it seemed to me that everyone then listened to the finale with a greater understanding of how art and reality mingled so tragically at the end of the Russian composer's life."
For those of you who are unaware, the third movement of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony ends with a bang, as if it is the ending movement. The final movement is atypical in that it ends softly and slowly, befitting the title of the symphony: The Pathetic. It is no surprise that Chicagoan's applauded when they did. The bigger question regards Muti's slap on their collective wrists for doing so.
Muti might be right about the fact that the applause interrupted the musical flow. However, when he spoke about the point (no matter how politely), what signal did he send to those in the audience? I think he said: You are uneducated. You just ruined this for everyone who is educated. Don't come back until you are educated.
And we in the orchestra world wonder why audiences are getting smaller....
Monday, September 24, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Beam me up, Scotty!
As I write this blog, I am preparing for our regular season concert opener, entitled The Final Frontier. As you can probably guess, we will be doing space-inspired music. It got me to thinking about how many composers have been inspired by space through the years.
Look at the moon, for example. We have It's Only a Paper Moon, Moon River, By the Light of the Silvery Moon, Fly Me to the Moon, and Dark Side of the Moon--and that's what I could think of in 30 seconds!
Or how about stars? We have Stardust, When You Wish Upon a Star, and Star Wars. Planets? Earth Angel, Mozart's Jupiter symphony, Holst's The Planets, and the Beatles' Sun King. (Okay, I know. That's technically a star.)
I guess this brings new meaning to the idea of one having one's head in the clouds.
Look at the moon, for example. We have It's Only a Paper Moon, Moon River, By the Light of the Silvery Moon, Fly Me to the Moon, and Dark Side of the Moon--and that's what I could think of in 30 seconds!
Or how about stars? We have Stardust, When You Wish Upon a Star, and Star Wars. Planets? Earth Angel, Mozart's Jupiter symphony, Holst's The Planets, and the Beatles' Sun King. (Okay, I know. That's technically a star.)
I guess this brings new meaning to the idea of one having one's head in the clouds.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Some people just don't get it
It's been too long since I posted to this site. In fact, when I saw that it had been almost one month, I was shocked. Of course, I have an excuse. As many of you know, I was just appointed music director of the Murfreesboro (Tennessee) Symphony Orchestra. I am quite enthused about the position. Murfreesboro is a great town with a lot of potential for a great orchestra. Maybe I will write more about the job later, but for now I want to grind my axe.
Anyone who has read this blog or talked to me personally, knows that I have an axe to grind when it comes to orchestral programming. The reason that I am going to talk about the subject yet again is that I read an article lately, written by a conductor whose orchestra was near bankruptcy. I couldn't believe my eyes. The guy was defending the traditional approach to programming and his orchestra almost ceased to exist! For those of you who don'tknow what I am talking about when I refer to the "traditional approach" to programming, here we go.
Most orchestras perform the usual overture, concerto, and symphony (in that order) on their regular concert programs and then have a separate pops series. In most cases, it's the pops concert ticket revenue that keeps the traditional programming alive. However, that is usually only true for orchestras with big budgets. It's different for smaller orchestras.
In the case of smaller orchestras, there are usually five or six regular, classical-type concerts (usually they are called the masterworks series) and two or three pops concerts. Unfortunately, in the case of small-budget orchestras, there are not enough pops concerts to pay for the regular concerts. And, the regular concerts are usually money-losers. Okay, I hear objections at this point. Some of you are saying, "No orchestra is able to make it on ticket sales alone." To which I reply, "Of course not." However, audience members start as ticket buyers and become donors later on. If an orchestra's audience is thin, so are the donors (unless the orchestra is relying on one or two BIG donors which, of course, is foolish with a capital "F").
So, orchestras go right along with this method and sometimes sail right into oblivion. I guess some conductors think it is better to not exist than to lower their standards, which is where I come in.
I believe that it is perfectly okay and even preferable to combine classical and popular music ON THE SAME PROGRAM. Who is it that decided a concert can only feature one genre of music? It certainly wasn't the famous composer Felix Mendelssohn (you know him--he wrote the tune that people play at the end of weddings). If you look at his concerts (around the middle of the 19th century), he programmed new classical music, old classical music, and arias from operettas (the 19th-century equivalent of the Broadway musical), all on the same program. BLASPHEMY!!!! Another guy who did the same was the march king, John Philip Sousa. He would perform "Turkey in the Straw," an aria from "La Boheme," and a march, one after the other. And, guess what? He was EXTREMELY successful. (At this point, there are conductors who are looking down their noses saying, "But he was a BAND DIRECTOR, not a serious musicians. I'm not going to touch that one with a ten-foot pole!).
All of this is common sense: play what the people want to hear. Of course, introduce them to music that challenges them, but for goodness sakes, don't bore them to tears or drive them out of the concert hall. After all, isn't it better to get people in the door who have never heard classical music by providing entertainment as well as culture? (I seriously think that there are some conductors who would just as soon perform for their 200-300 converts than to "lower their standards". To use an analogy, that would be like a pastor of a church only preaching to the saved and not trying to reach the unsaved!)
One thing I want those conductors to do is to tell me what pop music actually is. Why is the overture to Candide classical but West Side Story is pop? They were both written by Leonard Bernstein. Or IS West Side Story classical but My Fair Lady isn't? I get confused. Then there is Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin. Most conductors will lower themselves to play that on a regular concert, but they wouldn't perform Gershwin's songs with the rhapsody. Why not?
Some would say because the rhapsody is of a higher quality. Who decides that? As we used to say in the '70s (or was it the '80s?), "gag me with a spoon"!
Some people (conductors) just don't get it. For those of us who do, we can rest assured that we will at least have an orchestra to conduct. The "serious" folks will have to pry the baton out of my cold, dead-but happy- hand.
Anyone who has read this blog or talked to me personally, knows that I have an axe to grind when it comes to orchestral programming. The reason that I am going to talk about the subject yet again is that I read an article lately, written by a conductor whose orchestra was near bankruptcy. I couldn't believe my eyes. The guy was defending the traditional approach to programming and his orchestra almost ceased to exist! For those of you who don'tknow what I am talking about when I refer to the "traditional approach" to programming, here we go.
Most orchestras perform the usual overture, concerto, and symphony (in that order) on their regular concert programs and then have a separate pops series. In most cases, it's the pops concert ticket revenue that keeps the traditional programming alive. However, that is usually only true for orchestras with big budgets. It's different for smaller orchestras.
In the case of smaller orchestras, there are usually five or six regular, classical-type concerts (usually they are called the masterworks series) and two or three pops concerts. Unfortunately, in the case of small-budget orchestras, there are not enough pops concerts to pay for the regular concerts. And, the regular concerts are usually money-losers. Okay, I hear objections at this point. Some of you are saying, "No orchestra is able to make it on ticket sales alone." To which I reply, "Of course not." However, audience members start as ticket buyers and become donors later on. If an orchestra's audience is thin, so are the donors (unless the orchestra is relying on one or two BIG donors which, of course, is foolish with a capital "F").
So, orchestras go right along with this method and sometimes sail right into oblivion. I guess some conductors think it is better to not exist than to lower their standards, which is where I come in.
I believe that it is perfectly okay and even preferable to combine classical and popular music ON THE SAME PROGRAM. Who is it that decided a concert can only feature one genre of music? It certainly wasn't the famous composer Felix Mendelssohn (you know him--he wrote the tune that people play at the end of weddings). If you look at his concerts (around the middle of the 19th century), he programmed new classical music, old classical music, and arias from operettas (the 19th-century equivalent of the Broadway musical), all on the same program. BLASPHEMY!!!! Another guy who did the same was the march king, John Philip Sousa. He would perform "Turkey in the Straw," an aria from "La Boheme," and a march, one after the other. And, guess what? He was EXTREMELY successful. (At this point, there are conductors who are looking down their noses saying, "But he was a BAND DIRECTOR, not a serious musicians. I'm not going to touch that one with a ten-foot pole!).
All of this is common sense: play what the people want to hear. Of course, introduce them to music that challenges them, but for goodness sakes, don't bore them to tears or drive them out of the concert hall. After all, isn't it better to get people in the door who have never heard classical music by providing entertainment as well as culture? (I seriously think that there are some conductors who would just as soon perform for their 200-300 converts than to "lower their standards". To use an analogy, that would be like a pastor of a church only preaching to the saved and not trying to reach the unsaved!)
One thing I want those conductors to do is to tell me what pop music actually is. Why is the overture to Candide classical but West Side Story is pop? They were both written by Leonard Bernstein. Or IS West Side Story classical but My Fair Lady isn't? I get confused. Then there is Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin. Most conductors will lower themselves to play that on a regular concert, but they wouldn't perform Gershwin's songs with the rhapsody. Why not?
Some would say because the rhapsody is of a higher quality. Who decides that? As we used to say in the '70s (or was it the '80s?), "gag me with a spoon"!
Some people (conductors) just don't get it. For those of us who do, we can rest assured that we will at least have an orchestra to conduct. The "serious" folks will have to pry the baton out of my cold, dead-but happy- hand.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Do you suffer from EOS?
A recent e-zine from the American Symphony Orchestra League piqued my interest:
In Sunday’s San Diego Union-Tribune, Valerie Scher comments on what she calls “Excessive Ovation Syndrome (EOS for short),” writing: “Those suffering from it stand and applaud at performances that aren't good enough to deserve such enthusiasm. In extreme cases, they shout ‘Bravo!’ during events that are best forgotten. The more people pay for tickets, the more susceptible they are to EOS, because ovations confirm that their money was well spent. Even those in bargain seats can easily catch it from their neighbors. The urge to stand and cheer may be irresistible if everyone around you is doing it.” Scher adds: “On rare occasions -- the operative word here is ‘rare’ -- ovations are entirely appropriate ... As concertgoers, we must ask ourselves: Is this performance so exceptional that it merits a special response? Is this truly an event in which mere applause isn't enough? ... The danger is that ovations will become so routine that they'll hardly mean anything at all.”
I have to admit that I have often witnessed this awful disease. Without naming names, on several occasions I have attended concerts that were more deserving of "boos" and rotten tomatoes, let alone "hurrahs" and standing ovations. However, I disagree with Ms Scher's analysis. At the risk of sounding elitist, I believe that it is sheer ignorance and peer pressure that account for most standing ovations. What do I mean?
First, let me say that I am not talking about the situation where an entire audience simultaneously leaps to its collective feet to cheer a performance. No, I'm talking about the concerts were one or two patrons, usually near the front row, stand up and applaud. In my opinion, these types of people don't do it to make themselves feel better about spending a lot of money for tickets. Instead, I believe they stand out of pride for the ensemble or pure ignorance. Sometimes I think that some orchestras could sound worse than an elementary-level string group and still receive an ovation from some people. Let's face it, these people just don't know any better. For those who DO know better, I think it's akin to standing ovations that occur after a local football team loses the big game. The cheering is meant to be encouraging, sort of a "keep your chin up" kind of thing. That accounts for the instigators of the ovation, but why do others around them stand? Is it, as Ms Scher suggests, because it is "irresistible"?
I have to admit that I usually join in after the instigators begin the "wave". Why do I do it? It's not because it is "irresistible" as Ms Scher suggests. No. I do it because I don't want people to think I'm not a team player. It would sort of be like sitting down at the football game when everyone else is standing. I wouldn't want them to think that I was a traitor. So, knowing better, I will continue to stand.
What do you think?
In Sunday’s San Diego Union-Tribune, Valerie Scher comments on what she calls “Excessive Ovation Syndrome (EOS for short),” writing: “Those suffering from it stand and applaud at performances that aren't good enough to deserve such enthusiasm. In extreme cases, they shout ‘Bravo!’ during events that are best forgotten. The more people pay for tickets, the more susceptible they are to EOS, because ovations confirm that their money was well spent. Even those in bargain seats can easily catch it from their neighbors. The urge to stand and cheer may be irresistible if everyone around you is doing it.” Scher adds: “On rare occasions -- the operative word here is ‘rare’ -- ovations are entirely appropriate ... As concertgoers, we must ask ourselves: Is this performance so exceptional that it merits a special response? Is this truly an event in which mere applause isn't enough? ... The danger is that ovations will become so routine that they'll hardly mean anything at all.”
I have to admit that I have often witnessed this awful disease. Without naming names, on several occasions I have attended concerts that were more deserving of "boos" and rotten tomatoes, let alone "hurrahs" and standing ovations. However, I disagree with Ms Scher's analysis. At the risk of sounding elitist, I believe that it is sheer ignorance and peer pressure that account for most standing ovations. What do I mean?
First, let me say that I am not talking about the situation where an entire audience simultaneously leaps to its collective feet to cheer a performance. No, I'm talking about the concerts were one or two patrons, usually near the front row, stand up and applaud. In my opinion, these types of people don't do it to make themselves feel better about spending a lot of money for tickets. Instead, I believe they stand out of pride for the ensemble or pure ignorance. Sometimes I think that some orchestras could sound worse than an elementary-level string group and still receive an ovation from some people. Let's face it, these people just don't know any better. For those who DO know better, I think it's akin to standing ovations that occur after a local football team loses the big game. The cheering is meant to be encouraging, sort of a "keep your chin up" kind of thing. That accounts for the instigators of the ovation, but why do others around them stand? Is it, as Ms Scher suggests, because it is "irresistible"?
I have to admit that I usually join in after the instigators begin the "wave". Why do I do it? It's not because it is "irresistible" as Ms Scher suggests. No. I do it because I don't want people to think I'm not a team player. It would sort of be like sitting down at the football game when everyone else is standing. I wouldn't want them to think that I was a traitor. So, knowing better, I will continue to stand.
What do you think?
Friday, July 6, 2007
A Star-Spangled Evening
I am a softy when it comes to Independence Day. I absolutely love the music. In fact, when I reflect on the July 4th concert we presented Wednesday, I wonder: What is it about that music, in particular, that is so special? Why do I get teary-eyed when I hear America, the Beautiful? Is it the tune? The words? Or, perhaps, a combination of both?
Maybe it's the music. In fact, I typically don't pay attention to words at all. Maybe that's because I'm an instrumentalist. I have to REALLY like a tune before I bother to think about it's words. In fact, I like a lot of music that has terrible words (Jimmy Webb's MacArthur Park immediately comes to mind). No doubt, the patriotic standards I enjoy have good tunes. Nothing is more beautiful or memorable than America, the Beautiful or God Bless America. But it's not the tunes alone that touch my heart strings.
Maybe it's the words. Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain. Pretty catchy, huh? It is great poetry, but would these lines have the same impact if they were read alone without the tunes? I think not.
So, the answer to the question has to be this: the words and music work together. That seems logical. But it HAS to be more than that. After all, there are a lot of songs that have good tunes and good lyrics. But the music of Independence Day is different in some way.
Patriotic music is different because it carries with it a whole array of emotions. When I hear a medley of services songs, I get teary-eyed because it makes me think of all of the men and women who have died so that I can enjoy the blessings of being an American. It makes be emotional because I think of my dad. He enlisted in the United States Coast Guard during WWII, knowing that he might not survive the war. It makes me think of my brother who served in Vietnam and has never been the same since. These people really sacrificed. When I hear patriotic songs, I just don't hear words and music. I feel them.
All of you have similar stories. You also have particular songs that touch you the same way. It might be Christmas music, which brings back memories of childhood. It might be a pop song that you associate with your spouse. Whatever it is, you know what I'm talking about.
One thing I do know: there is nothing more powerful than music.
Maybe it's the music. In fact, I typically don't pay attention to words at all. Maybe that's because I'm an instrumentalist. I have to REALLY like a tune before I bother to think about it's words. In fact, I like a lot of music that has terrible words (Jimmy Webb's MacArthur Park immediately comes to mind). No doubt, the patriotic standards I enjoy have good tunes. Nothing is more beautiful or memorable than America, the Beautiful or God Bless America. But it's not the tunes alone that touch my heart strings.
Maybe it's the words. Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain. Pretty catchy, huh? It is great poetry, but would these lines have the same impact if they were read alone without the tunes? I think not.
So, the answer to the question has to be this: the words and music work together. That seems logical. But it HAS to be more than that. After all, there are a lot of songs that have good tunes and good lyrics. But the music of Independence Day is different in some way.
Patriotic music is different because it carries with it a whole array of emotions. When I hear a medley of services songs, I get teary-eyed because it makes me think of all of the men and women who have died so that I can enjoy the blessings of being an American. It makes be emotional because I think of my dad. He enlisted in the United States Coast Guard during WWII, knowing that he might not survive the war. It makes me think of my brother who served in Vietnam and has never been the same since. These people really sacrificed. When I hear patriotic songs, I just don't hear words and music. I feel them.
All of you have similar stories. You also have particular songs that touch you the same way. It might be Christmas music, which brings back memories of childhood. It might be a pop song that you associate with your spouse. Whatever it is, you know what I'm talking about.
One thing I do know: there is nothing more powerful than music.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Are you tone deaf?
Through the years I have met several people who say they are tone deaf. I have always been skeptical of such comments. Usually what the person means is that they can't sing. There is a difference between not being able to distinguish between the relative highness or lowness of a musical pitch (tone deafness) and being unable to produce the pitch via the vocal chords. I HAVE met several people who cannot sing. (The worst thing is when they THINK they can sing, but they cannot.) Anyway, thanks to my friend, Mark Van Patten, at the Bowling Green Daily News, I am now aware of a tool that determines if one is, in fact, tone deaf.
Click on http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/. At the site you will find a test in which you, the listener, will be asked to determine if two musical phrases (played one after the other) are the same or different. I found the test to be pretty difficult. Sometimes my mind wanted to supply differences that were not there. Before I began, I was hesitant to even take the test. What if I, the maestro, scored at the bottom level? I finally decided that if I did fail, I had the option of pretending that it never occurred. In that case, I would definitely NOT bring it to the attention of anyone else. That was an easy decision. However, what if I didn't do that bad, but didn't score at the top? I decided to put my ego aside (not an easy thing for a conductor) and take the test.
I am happy to report that I did score at the top level....barely. I got a 91.7%. Go take the test and tell me how you did. And if you did better than me, please keep it to yourself.
Click on http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/. At the site you will find a test in which you, the listener, will be asked to determine if two musical phrases (played one after the other) are the same or different. I found the test to be pretty difficult. Sometimes my mind wanted to supply differences that were not there. Before I began, I was hesitant to even take the test. What if I, the maestro, scored at the bottom level? I finally decided that if I did fail, I had the option of pretending that it never occurred. In that case, I would definitely NOT bring it to the attention of anyone else. That was an easy decision. However, what if I didn't do that bad, but didn't score at the top? I decided to put my ego aside (not an easy thing for a conductor) and take the test.
I am happy to report that I did score at the top level....barely. I got a 91.7%. Go take the test and tell me how you did. And if you did better than me, please keep it to yourself.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Economic Impact of the Arts
I'm tired. I'm physically tired, true, but I'm most tired of hearing people say that the BGCO provides entertainment. Of course that's a big part of what we do, but we do much more than that. Rather than get into all the ways our orchestra contributes to the community, I want to focus on one: the BGCO's economic impact on Bowling Green.
Americans for the Arts conducted a national survey on the economic impact of the arts on 156 communities. (Visit www.AmericansForTheArts.org/EconomicImpact for more information.) They took the averages of the data they collected from the study and created an economic impact calculator where an organization can enter their figures and find out the impact the organization has on its community. I entered the information for the BGCO and learned the following:
Last season our organization supported the equivalent of 13.9 jobs in our community. Next season we are on track to support 17.1 jobs.
The City of Bowling Green received $14,608 (license fees, taxes, etc.) as a result of the BGCO. Next year will be about $18,065.
Audiences spent about $706,500 as a result of our events last year.
The BGCO’s total economic impact last year was $1,201,336. Next year will be closer to $1,318,463.
Not bad for a group that entertains.
Americans for the Arts conducted a national survey on the economic impact of the arts on 156 communities. (Visit www.AmericansForTheArts.org/EconomicImpact for more information.) They took the averages of the data they collected from the study and created an economic impact calculator where an organization can enter their figures and find out the impact the organization has on its community. I entered the information for the BGCO and learned the following:
Last season our organization supported the equivalent of 13.9 jobs in our community. Next season we are on track to support 17.1 jobs.
The City of Bowling Green received $14,608 (license fees, taxes, etc.) as a result of the BGCO. Next year will be about $18,065.
Audiences spent about $706,500 as a result of our events last year.
The BGCO’s total economic impact last year was $1,201,336. Next year will be closer to $1,318,463.
Not bad for a group that entertains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)