Musical Programming from the Board: Not a Good Idea
From time to time when I visit an orchestra, or when I talk with
conductors or executives, I encounter a problem that seems to be
growing and expanding like a bad weed. That is the phenomenon of board
members, usually one person, trying to take over the programming of a
professional symphony orchestra. This doesn't happen, of course, at the
big major international-level orchestras, where there are very strong
music directors and large administrative staffs. But it does happen in
some of our smaller orchestras, and it often results in a mess.
Programming is a profession--and is better left to the professionals. That does not mean that there is no room for a board of directors to have a program advisory committee, or an artistic advisory committee. But the key word is advisory. Such a committee should reflect the community's reaction to the overall programming philosophy and convey that to the music director and the management. This committee should not get into choosing or dictating specific pieces.
Often what happens, I'm sorry to say, is that one person who is an avid record collector or concertgoer makes the mistake of thinking that his taste reflects the taste of everyone, and thinks he knows better than the music director what should be played. It is virtually always nonsense. There are many factors that go into programming--the difficulty of the music, how it will help the orchestra grow, how do the pieces fit together, all of these things and more. Conductors shouldn't work in isolation, and should not resent input from community members, audience members, orchestra musicians, administrators, indeed all outside resources. But the final programming decisions should be left to the music director--with a very heavy role also belonging to the management, which might have a better idea about box office appeal and about what extra expenses may be incurred in performing a given work. When guest conductors are invited, they should be allowed to program their concerts, with some negotiation to be sure that what they want to do fits the abilities of the orchestra and the shape of its season.
But when individual board members start to take over and dictate programming choices, something is seriously out of whack. We don't expect our music directors to be able to manage a bank or an insurance company. Our board members should not try to become music directors.
Often what happens, I'm sorry to say, is that one person who is an avid record collector or concertgoer makes the mistake of thinking that his taste reflects the taste of everyone, and thinks he knows better than the music director what should be played. It is virtually always nonsense. There are many factors that go into programming--the difficulty of the music, how it will help the orchestra grow, how do the pieces fit together, all of these things and more. Conductors shouldn't work in isolation, and should not resent input from community members, audience members, orchestra musicians, administrators, indeed all outside resources. But the final programming decisions should be left to the music director--with a very heavy role also belonging to the management, which might have a better idea about box office appeal and about what extra expenses may be incurred in performing a given work. When guest conductors are invited, they should be allowed to program their concerts, with some negotiation to be sure that what they want to do fits the abilities of the orchestra and the shape of its season.
But when individual board members start to take over and dictate programming choices, something is seriously out of whack. We don't expect our music directors to be able to manage a bank or an insurance company. Our board members should not try to become music directors.
3 Comments