And now we get to the hard stuff. The questions that truly are difficult.
I think there are four reasons.
First: it would be hard to do anything with the information these comparisons would supply.
Second: the ideology of classical music says that everything’s wonderful.
(And yes, of course I know — having, for God’s sake, been a critic–that critics will find fault with performances. But they’re notably circumspect, on the whole, compared with movie critics, let’s say, or sportswriters.)
Third: it’s in orchestra managements’ interest not to have quality talked about.
Fourth; it’s in the musicians’ interest not to have their quality talked about.
I’m not saying there’s a direct line between all of this and the lack of discussion. It’s not as if orchestra managements or musicians or classical music ideologists (whoever they’d be) conspire to suppress talk about quality.
But somehow the entire classical music enterprise — as we know it now — has evolved in ways that make these discussions unlikely.
And one thing I’m sure about. If the public side of all this — what critics say, what members of the audience might say — were more advanced, if discussions of orchestra quality were clear, strong, and closely detailed, then the private side would do better, too. If — and please, understand that this is an imaginary example, something I’m making up — all of Cincinnati talked about how bad the trombones were in the Cincinnati Symphony, wouldn’t the orchestra have to do something about it?
Pushback: someone’s sure to say that all this is niggling, irrelevant. Because orchestras play superbly well! I’m not going to deny that many in fact do play well. But are we supposed to believe that orchestras — alone among human institutions — are exempt from the bell curve, that some aren’t better than others, and that some might not just be pretty bad?
Next (and, I think, the most difficult discussion of all): do orchestras have an internal culture that fosters the highest-quality art?
Laurence Glavin says
One summer I was staying with some friends in Western Massachusetts, 20 miles from Tanglewood. Almost by rote, everyone was geared up to go to that night’s Boston Symphony concert. Thet were surprised that I did something else on my own, first because they considered me the go-to guru on all things classical and operatic, and by the reason I gave: the program (Wienawski Violin Concerto #2 and Shostakovich 6th Symphony) were NOT compelling piece. They indeed had the feeling that just about ANY piece played by a world-class orchestra must be of Olympian stature. (In this case closer to Olympia Beer than Mt. Olympus). I recall in detail the makeup of the Tanglewood program, but forget whether I went to a chamber music concert at Music Mountain or a play at the Williamstown Theater Festival (initals WTF!) which is what I tended to do on a Saturday night in the Berkshires. I trust the people who did go to the concert probably enjoyed it nonetheless; it was probably better than most of the music they had been exposed to all year up to that point.
Andy McLeroy says
The other night I went to see the movie Super 8 with some friends. Afterword, we lingered in the theater lobby discussing not only the technical merits — shot selection, character development, etc, — but also just the way the film affected us emotionally. None of us formally studied film or anything, this conversation just came up naturally as we were leaving. This has never happened with me at an orchestra performance. I’ve gone to the orchestra with different family members and friends but the response is always pretty much along the lines of “that was nice.”
Rob Kennedy says
It most definitely is in a musician’s interest to have their quality of performance talked about. This is good article by the way.
Musicians are no different from other artists; writers are scorned and praised, the same writer, for the same book sometime, and both of these can be loved and hated. You will see where I’m heading with this.
Everyone needs support, if that support happens against the quality of product, it is better that that support never happened.
Orchestral music, like a novel is a complex evolving entity. Both need to be told and played just right. If I read a story, and don’t know it, if I think that I can just improvise over parts and it will all work, then I am destroying the whole purpose of the art.
Art is not a just a commodity, it is a product that has to compete, but it’s not a simple article of trade – its worth is in its intrinsic value.
That nature is built into its makeup, not just by the composer or writer, but also from years of love, passion, and by interest and dedication for its worth, from you and me: the listeners and the reader.
If an orchestra is not up to scratch, don’t boo of hiss at them, write them a letter, post a note on line that explains what you did not like about their performance.
I don’t want to hear someone venting their dislike, as most people don’t. I want to hear why they did not like it. Give me your heartfelt and honest opinion, think about it, don’t just write something and not edit it. Composers don’t do this; neither should someone with a critical response.
If there is a reason for silence, it is we are intimidated by classical music. But, if you study it, if you listen to it, you will understand it. From pre Bach to post Glass, it is notes on a page, like words, waiting to be understood.
The Weatherman says
That’s a really interesting series of articles. However, one thing I’d like to see you address more closely is this question – what exactly is the purpose of a symphony orchestra?
The purpose of a baseball club is clear – it’s to win games and titles. It’s all very measurable, and the position by position comparisons are central to that aim.
Orchestras play many important roles – they preserve musical and cultural traditions for us, they educate us, they provide a vehicle for modern day composers to strut their stuff. Not highly measurable. But they’re also there to entertain us, and this aspect is highly measurable: ticket sales. I realise it’s a short step from the pursuit of broad audience appeal to the introduction of skating rinks and light classics on ice (and other tricks as successfully promoted by Voldemort, but surely audience numbers and audience engagement needs to be factored in to your benchmarks.
You started this thread with a comment in The Australian that young orchestras with less polish and more pizzazz might be more exciting to hear. To keep the baseball analogies going, this could be the musical version of Moneyball, the story of a low-budget team building a winning record by buying cheap/unfashionable players who actually contributed to winning games rather than expensive players who only appeared to be contributing to winning games.
John-Morgan Bush says
Greg,
You raise some very powerful questions here. Questions that I believe we need to be asking– but more importantly answering. This is what I am trying to do with my performance ensemble Tuxedo Revolt. I appreciate your willingness to swim against the current on this one.
Best,
John-Morgan Bush
Hamstrung says
PART 1
If a man lies bleeding to death in the middle of the street, it’s probably not very helpful to walk up, kick him, and yell in his face, “You shouldn’t have crossed against the light!” and then walk smugly away leaving others to call 911.
The title of your sermon today, “Reasons for the silence,” is well chosen, Greg, but the deafening silence I’m hearing is different than the one you’re hearing. Let’s recap.
You got zinged really good by a cartoon in Adaptistration over a really thoughtless and bone-headed (many would say cruel) comment you made about professional musicians. Anyone with a little sense of humor would have laughed and blushed, said “Yeah, you got me,” and then got on with their lives — possibly having learned something about themselves. Instead you chose the route of self-justification and attack. You had to try to figure out a way to explain that your initial loony comment was misunderstood — what everyone else saw as an embarrassing cow pie you stepped in was really a gem of wisdom that you now needed to unpack so that everyone could see that you, once again, are right, and those who actually do music for a living are, once again, all wrong. So you proceded to write a series of posts (5 so far) devoted to what amounts to an extended assault on orchestra musicians, with an occasional swipe at unions, based on a problem that you’ve invented: orchestras don’t model themselves after baseball clubs. You really should run for political office.
The result after the first of these diversionary posts was a mixed response in a dozen or so reader comments (but a lot of laughing, venting & sputtering over at Adaptistration). But in ensuing posts at Sandow there has been virtual reader silence. My guess is not that no one is reading this stuff, it’s that they’re either too angry or too embarrassed for you to engage with you on your bogus challenge. And of course the deafening silence could be broken at any moment by an avalanche of supportive comments from your fan base.
(Part 2 to follow)
Hamstrung says
PART 2
I tend to go back and forth about the question of whether we should demand that a critic have some hands-on experience as a professional musician before taking him or her seriously, but in this case, I have no ambivalence. Your words indicate you are in way over your head. You are attempting to delve deeply into the culture and organizational mechanics of working in a professional orchestra, but there is nothing to indicate you have anything but selective hearsay and anecdotes from those who have a stake in making you believe their version of the truth. If you have experienced any of this yourself – personally – your problem definitions and so-called solutions would carry a lot more weight than they do. So I am compelled to ask, and I have no idea what the answers will be, the following
QUESTIONS:
1. Have you ever performed as a regular member of a professional, semi-professional, or adult amateur orchestra? Chamber orchestra? Chamber ensemble? What was your instrument and for how long?
2. Have you ever conducted a professional, semi-professional or adult amateur orchestra? How many seasons? Any reviews?
3. Have you ever held a salaried administrative position in the management of an orchestra or any other arts organization? If other than ED or AD, what position? For how long? Have you ever written a vision, goals & objectives statement for a large orchestra? Written a 5-year plan? Programmed or worked with a conductor to program the next season? Hired soloists and made arrangements for their care and feeding? Have you ever been responsible for the budget for a large organization? Have you ever led a fundraising campaign? Have you ever had to hire or fire a professional musician?
4. Do you now, or have you ever, served on the board of a professional, semi-professional, or adult amateur orchestra? Served on the board of ANY arts or other NFP organization? Been on the executive committee of a board? Been on the search committee to hire a conductor or AD or ED? Been involoved in an annual evaluation of an AD or ED?
Sorry if these are “difficult questions” which you have a tendency to ignore away. But your readers would like to know, and I’m certain they will be reassured by your answers.
Bill Brice says
Sheese, Hamstrung! Did you miss the part where Greg observed the hard times orchestras are experiencing everywhere today? Surely it’s worthwhile to inquire into some of the possible causes for those hard times. And, no, it’s not exclusively (or even primarily) about The Recession. It’s about the aging (and shrinking) audiences for classical music in general, including orchestra concerts. Surely it’s reasonable to assume SOMETHING is wrong with how orchestra music is presented and promoted?
You may label Greg’s observations as “attack”, but I agree with most of them. So very many orchestra performances — even carefully-prepared recordings! — have a ho-hum quality about them. The very best of orchestras tend to be meticulous about the low-level details — intonation, beauty of sound, rythmic exactness, etc — but careless about the overall shape and interaction among the sections — and unenthusiastic about the small and large changes of dynamic level.
I have often been thrilled at performances by small civic orchestras or youth orchestras, which will show all sorts of performance blemishes, but which also can project the joy of performers really Experiencing their performance. Don’t you wonder why this quality is not more often sustained in the established, well-funded orchestras?
a curious reader says
Why So Serious Hamstrung? Nobody is forcing you to read this blog; you dont have to agree with anything Greg writes; you dont even have to take his thoughts worth a grain of salt but based on your reply — you do. A lot. Maybe even too much.
I want you to see that I’m not supporting his comments, but more so I’m just pointing out that your attack has made you look like a total and complete tool.
Jeff Prillaman says
I think this is a brilliant and brave series of articles. I salute you for the bravery to continue in your efforts to promote a future for classical musicians, in spite of the opinions of much of the current establishment. I, for one, have marked every post as “starred” in my reader and will be returning to them over and over again in coming months for reference.
Best Regards,
Jeff Prillaman
Midlothian, VA
Herbert Pauls says
I rarely write in, but Hamstrung’s comments compel me to chime in (not that Sandow needs my defense).
Hamstrung (do you really need to hide behind a false name??), I am among that sea of regular readers to which you refer. I have never met Sandow and he does not know me from a hole in the ground, but I have read this blog practically every week for many years and have sought out Mr. Sandow’s other articles as well. All I can say is that basically none of Sandow’s answers to your list of questions contain any real surprises to me. You seem to be somewhat in the dark as to his background (although I have trouble believing that). Go back into the archives and you will find all the info you want. He is a very well-known quantity in the music world and on the net. He regularly drops information that fills us in on things he is doing and has done in his life. He is genuinely concerned about the state of music and what he can do to help. He is constructive and treats his readers with great respect and patience. The discussions here are wide-ranging and fabulous. I would say that there are few out there with his uniquely wide frame of reference and few more qualified to even attempt to do what he is doing.
I could say a few things about the orchestral quality question but I won’t. Suffice it to say that my wife has been playing in professional orchestras in Canada and Germany for 15 years…and yes, orchestras are open to scrutiny.
Best,
Herbert Pauls
Winnipeg
Tom says
Greg,
Thanks for you reply to my comment to your previous blog. It may be too late for you to notice my reply considering the ruckus your latest blog post has created =D
However, I will say this, as briefly as I can, since I doubt you’ll get around to reading it.
Comparing movies to orchestral concerts is comparing oranges to apples.
Movies are visual and verbal, and therefore much more accessible off the bat (pardon the ongoing baseball terminology pun, not intended) than orchestral concerts. No need to have a long debate about that, it’s a fact. Once people are exposed to something accessible, like movies or baseball, which they can readily understand, they may get really into the artform or sport. They then make it their hobby to obssess about details, stats, and comparisons in their free time. Therefore, they can have a conversation about a movie or ball game that might surprise a professional critic in its substance.
This is in no way the case with orchestral concerts, which are so abstract that they require becoming informed a priori in many cases, if you want to go beyond a visceral reaction.
Some people are able to grasp and appreciate a symphonic concert at a visceral level at first hearing, get interested, and try to learn more about the genre. Most can’t. Try telling me the story in Brahms’ 1st symphony or what the “action” in the orchestra was if I’m a neophyte. If I’m a country music fan, chances are 85% for me saying that was a nice experience, but don’t invite me again (about what my reaction would be if someone invited me to a country music concert – though I’m biased, since I have a number of classical music educations).
I have been to many concerts, and I’ve heard audiences and my board members discuss the concerts they’ve just heard. The level of cluelessness is unbelievable! Even among board members and concert goers who have been attending concerts for many, many years. People rave about mediocre performances, and criticize a concert because the repertoire didn’t agree with them. And I even know that some of these people actually do quite a lot of homework by listening to classical music and reading about it.
All this goes to prove the fallacy of your comparisons. Symphonic music simply requires a higher level of sophistication and education to be sufficiently comprehensible for a listener to discuss intelligently. Even when personal opinion is not a factor.
Any reasonably educated person can fathom movies, plays, ball games, visual arts, even opera, after being exposed to them a few times. Such is simply not the case with abstract classical music, which requires comprehension on a highly abstract or theoretical level, for intelligent discussion. Hanslick was right about that one.
Again, thanks for answering my commnent!