[contextly_auto_sidebar]
RECENTLY I’ve enjoyed a performance by the chamber group Camerata Pacifica and several conversations with its founder, Adrian Spence. I disagree with the cheeky Ulsterman on some points — I am in some ways an American Anglophile with a European bent, he is a Brit who prefers American ways — but I find him insightful and, with his group, unorthodox in an intriguing way.
Camerata is a group, based in Santa Barbara (sort of), now into its 28th season. After some struggling through the recession, they have bounced back financially, and are playing to larger audiences than before. The group often plays modern or new music — sometimes new commissions — alongside Schubert, Beethoven, or Ravel.
With no further introduction, I’ve included here my recent correspondence with Spence. The group’s next set of concerts runs from Nov. 12 to 17th; schedule here. The November program involves Prokofiev’s First Violin Sonata and Messiaen’s Quartet for the End of Time. I’ll be there.
There are a lot of classical groups, especially chamber groups, in greater Los Angeles these days. How do you think Camerata Pacifica stands out? Is there something you do better than everyone else? 
The LA chamber music scene is flourishing and we’re very excited to be a part of this dynamic and expanding community, indeed we’re part of a nascent collective with 7 other groups that you’ll hear about soon. I’m not sure I want to get into a better, (or worse), analysis. What’s exciting is the breadth of distinctive offerings in town, and I can tell you that in that environment we are distinctive. Camerata Pacifica is an international group, with musicians are drawn from across the world: Spain, UK, Ireland, Korea, Taiwan and of course the U.S., who are selected not just because of their artistic excellence, but because they subscribe and actively contribute to the Camerata sense of community. That international roster is distinctive, as is our rehearsal schedule: the musicians arrive for a residency in Santa Barbara when they rehearse for between 30 & 40 hours, sometimes more, before performing each program in 4 different cities. All of that is distinctive, as is our programming, which we address in another question.
Some large classical organizations — philharmonics and operas, especially — have had a hard time of it since the Great Recession, with some groups shrinking or laying off players, some shuttering entirely. And there has been talk about the “graying” of the audience for at least a quarter century now. You reject the idea that it’s a tough time for classical music, though.
I do. Well, it may be tough for some as we’re going through a significant, but appropriate, ‘market adjustment’ and many won’t survive, especially the large paradigm institutions. The Recession’s not the reason though. While it had a big impact, the issues facing the larger groups long predate that event. Led by chamber ensembles, however, we’re well into a 2nd classical music renaissance. There’s been talk of audience greying for centuries — can’t you writer folks come up with another question? Let me tell you, the last thing I’m worried about is running out of old people — there are new old people every day! The rest of your question demands a more complex answer, which would be book-length. Consider this a start though, classical music burgeons on an emergent middle class: that’s what happened in post-Enlightenment Europe, in the late 19th century U.S. and now in, for instance, China. These new residents of the middle class weren’t all devotees of classical music — for them music was an upwardly mobile thing. In Europe the new class with money and education wanted to emulate the aristocracy; in the U.S. the philharmonics and symphonies weren’t created to satisfy a great love of music, but because civic pride dictated those cities ‘needed’ those components to rival their European counterparts, and, in today’s China the huge emergent middle class has similar aspirations towards, at least perceived, sophistication.
If we allow for that ‘bubble’, it follows there will be a contraction and that’s one of the many reasons we’ve experienced a decline in audience these past decades. Here’s the thing though, and this is a radical notion … at Camerata Pacifica people come only to listen to the music. No airs and graces, no self aggrandizement, certainly there’s no social cachet here — the Camerata audience is there to listen to the music — WOW! This is happening all over, led by chamber music. An audience of 2,000 is becoming much more difficult to find, but 10 audiences of 200? All the time. Look at the programming too … adventurous, interesting, surprising. At the beginning of the 21st century we have the best audiences EVER!
The rule of thumb in most classical groups, as long as I’ve been paying attention, is that audiences are — by and large — not interested in contemporary music or new composers, and that this work should be set off from the mainstream programs with separate all-contemporary concerts or entirely separate series. What has your experience with modern and new pieces been?
Let’s take my previous answer as a starting point: Camerata Pacifica has a loyal and, (key phrase), intellectually curious following. From the beginning, in the early 90s, I’ve programmed music that people don’t know — for a while I had a thing for early 20th century British composers — largely romantically based writing that, while new, wouldn’t be entirely unfamiliar. What happened was our audience became conditioned to show up to concerts with music by composers they didn’t recognize, and to hear music for the first time. This is great! A few times a season I would push the boundaries of comfort, and they would come with me. This was and is so exciting. Another Camerata distinction is our audience is a ‘mainstream’ audience that has journeyed through the repertoire with us. We are not a new music group, nor are we a heritage organization. We are a performing ensemble that explores the range of human musical expression, not bounded by a particular period. Bach had the same hopes and fears as you and I have; that his music is different than Messiaen’s is a result of artistic/technical evolution, not mankind’s emotional development. There’s the basis of exploration.
The idea that audiences aren’t interested in contemporary music is old school thinking, and a principal reason many of the larger groups are going belly up — they’re mired almost exclusively in 18th/19th century repertoire. One of Camerata Pacifica’s most successful programs is our commissioning program, with 17 significant new works premiered to date — all funded by our audience. I don’t see how segregating the audience does anyone any favours, whether it’s new music, old music … isn’t it the range of expression that’s mind-bogglingly wonderful?
Today’s audiences are interested in a dynamic performance experience, unconstrained by style or period. A live performance should be an adventure in listening. For sure you’re not going to love everything you hear, but that too is part of the adventure — developing your own taste, as opposed to being confined by what convention tells you you like.
Your structure is unorthodox: Your concerts take places in Santa Barbara, Ventura, outside Pasadena, and in downtown Los Angeles. The conventional wisdom is that a group that performs in several different cities will engage the loyalty of none of them, and will fail to engage an audience or a donor base. Do you think you’ve beaten this curse?
Dude, you’ve got to get out more ☺ Starbucks does it. MacDonald’s does it: this isn’t a new concept! Camerata Pacifica enjoys great audiences in each city, and they’re all very individual. As with any arts group, our expenses are front loaded … it’s expensive to rehearse and, as I shared earlier, we rehearse a lot. Therefore first concert is very costly, but at that point I have a fully rehearsed band, so the marginal cost of adding performances is relatively small. On the other hand, ticket sales and generous support are increased, in our case, times four. The costs are amortized over four venues, and the income increased over four venues. Camerata Pacifica has a very durable subscription base in each city, with a very high renewal rate. It’s significant too, that while we perform in chamber music appropriate halls, (small), that emphasize the powerful intimacy of this music, cumulatively each program reaches over 1,000 people.
You hail from Belfast, and as an Ulster Scot you are sort of on the edge of Britain, and on the edge of Ireland as well. Does that complex split shape your sense of music, culture, nationality, or anything else?
Yes, a little town outside Belfast called Newtownards. Over there I couldn’t get away with saying I came from Belfast. I haven’t spent my time thinking about the influence of my cultural heritage. It was a working class background and that, for sure, and the inability to take no for an answer helped get this thing started. No is just the first two letters of not yet! That I’m an emigrant might be relevant: those of us who up stakes and cross the world to self-start something? Perhaps there’s a selection process inherent there. Certainly I came to the U.S. and completely bought into the American Dream, that you can achieve anything provided you work hard enough. I don’t believe I could have started something like Camerata Pacifica in the UK or Europe, and I do believe the American system of arts funding, of personal investment, provides a more durable and meaningful model than state funded systems.
Would you like to say something about the next program, which includes a major Messiaen piece, or your concerts coming up this season?
Well, the program that begins on November 12th is profound and intense, with Prokofiev’s F Minor Violin Sonata and Messiaen’s Quartet for the End of Time — a universally acknowledged masterwork, that was famously composed and premiered in 1941 in a Nazi prisoner of war camp. But all the programs are great —you should come to them all!
That’s only half a joke. We are in the midst of a great time for classical music. This is the golden age. If you must have a diet of only the 18th & 19th century masterworks Camerata Pacifica’s not for you. I can recommend other groups for you to attend, but they’re following a model exemplified by the band playing on the deck of the Titanic. (Ahem, built in Belfast by the way. It was working when it left there!)
This is a great time to be part of an audience of one of the many superb, dynamic groups performing today, be it Camerata Pacifica or another ensemble. You can choose to cling to the past, or you can be part of the dynamic now. If you lean to the latter, my best advice is find a group you trust and subscribe. There’s no point in trying to cherry pick what programs you think you’ll like; there’s no way an audience member can know the range of music an Artistic Director does. Purchase the whole series, listen to everything and enjoy the ride. You’ll love it.
Adrian Spence: “I don’t believe I could have started something like Camerata Pacifica in the UK or Europe, and I do believe the American system of arts funding, of personal investment, provides a more durable and meaningful model than state funded systems.”
There are countless chamber orchestras in Europe. Munich, for example, has 6 full time professional orchestras, including a chamber orchestra, for a metro population of 5 million. 45 minutes away is Augsburg which also has a full time orchestra and opera house. If LA had the same number of orchestras per capita for its 18 million metro population, that would come to about 19 full time orchestras, including about three full time chamber orchestras. In reality, it has one symphony orchestra and a smallish number of part time chamber groups.
Los Angeles ranks 133rd in among cities for opera performances per year, even though it has the 3rd largest metro GDP in the world.
And in regard to Adrian’s comment about initiating something himself, the continental European system also provides far more support for performing groups outside the state owned and operated orchestras such as his ensemble. We might also note the generous support that allows for chamber orchestras that specialize in new music such as Ensemble Intercontemporain in Paris, or Ensemble Modern in Frankfurt. There are many other such groups in Europe with funding that Americans could only dream of.
Perhaps he is referring to the UK/Commonwealth system which is a sort of hybrid between Europe and USA funding concepts.
Indeed this is a place where I largely disagree with Spence.
But unlike you and me, he’s worked in both countries and run an arts group for almost 30 seasons, so I don’t think his pov is dismissable
I’ve worked extensively in both countries. My wife and I, for example, will tour to 26 cities in the USA this season. As far as his European heritage, we could consider London which has 5 full time symphony orchestras (opposed to LA’s one.) London ranks 4th in the world for opera performances per year (opposed to LA at 133.) London’s two full time opera houses receive about 70 million dollars per year from the government — equal to about half the entire budget of the NEA.
No question Europe / UK has a better system; our arts funding is pathetic
Have you or your wife run a group like this, that draws more than 1,000 people per program, for three decades? Until then I won’t dismiss his comment
But I am skeptical/ confused and have asked him to expand on his point
Nope. We are not so mainstream. OTH, I don’t think his experience changes the hard data about EU funding and attendance. If he expands, it will be interesting to read. There is very little discussion in the States that compares EU and USA funding.
I don’t have expertise in the arena of EU or UK versus US arts funding in order to offer any substantial viewpoint to this thread of conversation, however, I’m surprised by the fact that this has become the main topic of conversation inspired by this terrific article. From my perspective, the overarching point of the interview between Spence and Timberg was the relevance of classical music, and the engagement of a modern day audience through a novel approach to concept and programming. Spence’s comment regarding the creation of the Camerata Pacifica in America seemed more a positive statement related to the opportunity that exists in this country to create a unique group with a financially sustainable business model based largely on private funding (somewhat modeled after the academic university concept of “tenured performers,” with endowed chairs) rather than a definitive statement that it couldn’t be done elsewhere. I’d love to see more conversation around the rest of the interview, which I thought was interesting and refreshing dialogue surrounding the place of classical music in the 21st century and ways to engage audiences.
.
Bridget: You’ve seen what happens when a blowhard like Osborne hijacks a comments thread. It all becomes about him and the issue or two he rides like a hobbyhorse every day. I actually agree with him in some ways over Spence, but for all his irreverence, at least Adrian listens instead of constantly lecturing and changing the subject to how brilliant he is
Ms. Hough, by all means, raise whatever thoughts you like. There is no reason the discussion must be confined to one topic. Multiple threads are the norm in this sort of thing.
I was in London over the summer and amazing how much culture, however you define it, that place has these days
I’ve asked Spence to extend/ explain his pt re US vs Europe
My understanding is that most London orchestras, except perhaps the LSO, are paid on a per service basis that is not comparable to how the LA Phil, or any other large US orchestra, is structured. Full time means something completely different in the USA.
From the Guardian in 2014:
“In the salaried orchestras in the UK – the BBC orchestras, the Hallé, the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, the orchestras of most of our opera companies – precise figures aren’t available, but based on recent-ish figures, average orchestral wages hover around the £30,000 ($50,900) mark. For the other orchestras, who are often paid freelance rates according to the Association of British Orchestras and Musicians’ Union’s guidelines, these rates work out currently at less than £20 an hour for the vast majority of musicians for a concert day including as that does three hours of rehearsal and up to three hours of concert time.”
In that way London is more like Los Angeles/Southern California, where musicians work in a wide variety of contexts: groups such as Camerata Pacifica (which it’s my great pleasure to be a member of), LA Opera, Pacific Symphony, LA Chamber Orchestra, the Santa Barbara, Pasadena & Long Beach Symphonies etc., all varieties of studio and recording work in addition to the many smaller groups championing contemporary music.
Funding is perennially an issue, particularly for an art form as expensive as opera. We definitely need more state and federal support.
All of the arts are thriving in Los Angeles like never before, but definitely not in the same way as Europe or even New York for that matter…. which is a good thing! There’s a shoe for every foot.
I concur w the gentleman above
The five London Symphony Orchestras are all full time. Methods of payment are not the best measure, but rather the length of seasons and number of performances. All of these orchestras have regular, tenured, full time positions for musicians who work with the orchestras year-round. This is very different than the Camerata which has a small season with part time musicians. Very often these orchestras do not even have a consistent personnel and work with pickup musicians hired on a temporary basis.
It’s true that musicians in the UK are paid less than musicians in the few top American orchestras. This, however, is part of the problem with our private funding system which concentrates the arts in a few financial centers where the wealthy live. Competition evolves that stands in contrast to the non-profit status of the organizations. The first trumpet in the Philadelphia orchestra, for example, is paid $300,000 per year, while the tutti musicians in a regional orchestra like the New Mexico Philharmonic are paid $3000 per year (1/100th the amount) even after 30 years of service. And yet Albuquerque serves a metro area of almost one million people.
This funding concept of art by and for the wealthy also leads to exorbitant salaries in administration. In 2009, Carnegie Hall paid Clive Gillinson $800,000. By 2015 it was $2,235,308 – an increase of 180%. Salaries like this are unheard of in European arts administration, even in the UK which has a sort of US/EU hyrbrid system. In continental Europe, arts administrators are generally civil servants and paid according to those sorts of reasonable scales.
Below are some examples of other high salaries for arts executives in 2009, as reported in the New York Times. I take this from an older post I had written. For recent numbers I suspect one should add quite a bit more. Some of these administrators have retired or moved to other positions where they are often paid even more:
* Reynold Levy’s annual compensation to run Lincoln Center topped $1 million.
*Deborah Borda, Executive Director of the LA Phil currently made 1.8 million per year. She was paid more the Dudamel.
* Glenn D. Lowry, director of the Museum of Modern Art, earned $2.7 million in the year that ended in June 2008, including several one-time bonuses and the cost of his apartment in the tower beside the museum.
* Occasionally institutions will also pay bonuses tied to performance or longevity, like the $3.25 million given in 2006 to Philippe de Montebello to recognize his 30-year service to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. (His aristocratic name fits well with America’s neo-feudalistic form of arts funding.)
* On top of his $940,000 salary, Michael Kaiser of the Kennedy Center earned a $150,000 bonus, as well as other benefits, for 2009.
* Zarin Mehta’s compensation, for fiscal year 2010, was $807,500. In the fiscal year ending in August 2008 he earned 2.67 million. This reflected his salary in addition to eight years of accumulated deferred compensation.
* Timothy Rub, the director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art earns $450,00.
* George Steel, the general manager and artistic director of New York City Opera received $360,000 – and from an opera house shut down its next season due to a lack of funds.
Part of the problem is that with America’s private funding system, organizations become inordinately dependent on high paid administrators who can wheedle money out of the wealthy. It becomes a system by and for the wealthy, while the public funding systems of Europe regulate the salaries at reasonable levels and keep ticket prices in a range the middle class can afford. Ticket prices in the USA for the performing fine arts are generally three to four times higher than in the EU.
The US system also requires huge, expensive “development departments” who have to reinvent the funding wheel every year. The public funding system used by continental Europeans is far more efficient, since they do not need large funding departments. And they can plan their programming years in advance because their funding is consistent and secure.
Forgive me, but was anyone proposing or defending enormous administrative salaries? Me, Spence, anyone else?
You’ve become a tiresome old pseud. You neither persuade people nor encourage dialogue when you pull shit like this. I actually agree w you on most of this, but your know-it-all tone and refusal to listen to others without lecturing and uninformed generalities has just about everyone who reads my blog tired of your blowhard BS.
Here are some number in US dollars for public arts funding in London for the 2010/11 season:
Royal Opera House – $42,586,920
English National Opera – $27,609,723
English National Ballet – $10,326,879
London Philharmonic – $3,281,824
London Symphony – $3,282,638
Royal Philharmonic – $1,521,292
London Sinfonietta – $839,276
These institutions in London also receive massive amounts of funding:
Southbank Centre – $33,375,226
Royal National Theater – $29,561,565
There is also the BBC London Orchestra which is state funded, and countless smaller organizations in London that are also generously funded. The City of London alone receives more public funding than the entire NEA which serves a country of 320 million people.
It is notable that the UK government spends over 70 million dollars on opera in London alone.
And in spite of all of this, most other European governments spend far more on the arts than the UK.
The above figures are available in Pounds at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/30/arts-council-funding-decisions-list#data
The Camerata Pacifica does six programs a year in 24 performances for smaller audiences. The big London orchestras each typically do about 100 performances a year with 30 to 40 programs. (The numbers may vary a bit, but that is a fairly typical picture for major symphony orchestras like these five.) Some, like the BBC Symphony Orchestra, also do a lot of studio work.
OTH, Adrian is right that his sort of operation has some advantages in the States. It is easier for a chamber group that does six programs a year to stand out in the barren cultural landscape of America. In London, the LSO, Royal Philharmonic, London Philharmonic, Philhharmonia, and BBCSO have difficulty distinguishing themselves with so much competition at hand, To say nothing of the orchestras for the city’s two opera houses.
Regarding the relevancy of arts administrative salaries in the USA, they are a direct response to Mr. Hough’s comments about the pay of musicians in the UK. There is an enormous imbalance at the top in the USA in terms of pay, not only with administrators, but also with the top orchestras. The numbers about the administrators I mention, vividly illustrate the problems created by our form of cultural plutocracy.. One might also note that the LA Phil with a base pay of $154,300 is now the highest paid orchestra in the country, even though so many other areas of classical music in the area are neglected, and in an metro area of about 18 million people. An region this populous should have at least four or five full time orchestras instead of one that is exorbitantly paid (even considering the high costs of living in LA.) And in a city that ranks 133rd in the world for opera performances per year. A 1% culture inevitably services the few at the expense of the many…
Dear Mr. Osborne,
I have submitted a follow up to Scott. I must say though, while informed debate is healthy and to be encouraged, I have no intention of engaging in a back and forth with you when you publish comments like, “barren cultural landscape of America.” Is the appropriate response ROTFLOL? You certainly have an admirable capacity to undermine your own credibility.
The documented numbers I mention substantiate the view of cultural barrenness, especially with a focus on classical music, and especially if one looks past the few financial centers where there are enough wealthy donors to support the arts. I look forward to your follow up, but regret that you are reluctant to discuss and debate your view point, especially with someone who has obviously closely studied the American and European funding systems.. Perhaps it relates to Nick Daniel’s views that you are not the most democratic sort of person.
This is a great write-up (even if you come from Newtownards and not Belfast. ) Classical music is NOT dying, and Camerata is a shining example of how it’s flourishing. The group’s premise of exploring music on an emotional and humanistic continuum as opposed to a specific historical time period IS engaging and makes every piece excitingly relevant whether it was written 200 years ago or yesterday. Offering that experience in an intimate setting that cultivates a sense of community between audience members and performers is, I think, exactly what today’s society is hungering for: the opportunity to come together through shared experiences that can’t be replicated through a television or computer screen.
As a British member of Camerata, and a friend of Mr Spence as well as knowing Mr Osborne and his amazing wife Abbie Conant-with whom I will be making music next week as we are colleagues, I am in a position to see both sides of this story,
Firstly, an important point that Adrian makes is that Camerata has a truly International but stable line up of artists, what he doesn’t say is that it is hand selected by him himself and he REALLY knows about the chemistry of a group and how to get that right, so you have a regular series of concerts with a stable membership, but most importantly you have an AUDIENCE of people who invest not just in the concert ticket but in the actual music we play in terms of commissions.-sometimes individuals, but also consortia for certain pieces. They also invest serious money and energy in the group’s running costs-for instance a Bartok Manuscript was just most generously given to the group and is coming up for auction in London this month. It’s partly this sense of audience investment, financially and also emotionally, that has led to such an intensely listening and supportive collection of audiences in the different venues.
One might think that owing the whole group’s existence to donors is a minefield, but in reality that isn’t the case, mostly because Spence himself has the clearest vision about what he wants and sells it from that point of view. He’s not a democratic kind of leader, though our opinions and those of the audience are listened to, but there’s no committee programming or even planning to an extent so it’s really an undiluted concept. There’s another profound difference between the Camerata way and perhaps Europe.’s way. Britain, currently part of Europe (insert tear-stained-face-emoji), has a very different model to mainland Europe. Ours is rather a half way over the pond system perhaps with none of the clear benefits of either flying solo or complete state subsidy in most cases, but it’s mixed system does give it an ability to be flexible. The Britten Sinfonia, with whom I am also deeply connected, is an interesting model. In a less structured way than this sounds the running costs of the office are basically covered by state subsidy and the artistic work paid for by some very generous donors. Many of our numerous commissions come from state support, Arts Council or superb Trusts, however, so that’s a major difference. We did have a ‘tenner for a tenor’ campaign recently that saw many people donate £10 towards a commission for Mark Padmore from Jonathan Dove!
There’s positives and negatives in all the systems, but thank all relevant deities that there are people still prepared to devote their lives to creating art and to creating the environments in which art can thrive..
I must add that I am generally rather annoyed to hear ‘ageing audiences’ cited as a problem, and I loved Adrian’s “there are new old people every day”!! A mix of audience ages is ideal of course, but with Camerata and Britten Sinfonia the outreach work we do is often weighted towards young people, as they very often are getting less of this in Schools these days and we all have an important role to play there. Music Education in Schools- now THERE’S a problem.
Thank you for these interesting thoughts Nick. Abbie sends her greetings. On a localized, anecdotal level, your observations are very valid. The arts world owes a great deal to the dedicated individuals that make art happen. And in the States, this is especially true, since chamber music groups like the Camerata Pacifica have to build their work from the very ground up.
It’s also true that there are some advantages to the hybrid private/public system used in the Commonwealth countries, even if we have to look past the problems of cultural plutocracy created by organizations that require extensive, ongoing “investments” from the wealthy. The Anglo-American world is far more ready to accept this sort of classism than the continental Europeans.
On the whole however, I think the public systems of continental Europe are better. The UK, for example, ranks 21st in the world for opera performances per capita, behind 20 other European countries, including not only the German-speaking ones, but also countries far less rich than the UK such as Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Croatia. It also includes many countries such as Sweden and Poland that like the UK do not have extensive operatic traditions.
In recent years the orchestras in San Diego, Miami, Kansas City, Albuquerque, Syracuse, Tulsa, San Antonio, New Orleans, Denver, San Jose, Colorado Springs, Honolulu, Miami, and Philadelphia have declared bankruptcy. When they manage to return they are depleted and their musicians often demoralized. Many more orchestras are in continual financial trouble even if they skirt bankruptcy.
Miami has a metro population of 5.5 million, and is incredibly wealthy, but does not even have a symphony orchestra. The San Diego Opera declared bankruptcy a few years ago, and is now continuing a depleted form of its already paltry season. And on and one throughout the American cultural landscape. These problems cannot be overlooked when we discuss the American arts funding system.
And regarding your final comment, we also note that the countries that spend the most on the arts spend the most on arts education. The issues walk hand in hand.
Is not the New World Symphony the de facto orchestra of Miami?
Numbers are great but it seems to me you’re overstating your conclusions quite a bit. IMO much of what Nick wrote is factual, not anecdotal.
When speaking of the LA Metro area you wrote. “In reality, it has one symphony orchestra and a smallish number of part time chamber groups.”
This is entirely not the case.
The New World Symphony is a student training orchestra. They give short contracts to young college grads attempting to transition to professional careers. A professional orchestra is something very different. LA has one full time professional symphony orchestra. Here again, pickup groups are something very different. These are examples of how we mask the realities about our arts funding system and how it affects the arts in the USA.
I’m sorry, but Pacific Symphony, Los Angeles Opera, LA Chamber Orchestra (for example) are not pick up orchestras. You’re terminology is incorrect. It’s true that LA Phil is the only salaried, full time orchestra in the city….. but that’s entirely normal.
I’m well aware of NWS and what they do. However, but by being the resident ensemble providing symphonic programs in Miami they are the de facto orchestra for that city.
Yes, that is my point, it is grotesque when a student training orchestra becomes the de facto orchestra for a rich city of 5.5 million people. The ensembles you mention use regular rosters, but for season far less than full time. And many ensembles do use pick up musicians. In fact, for obvious reasons, when seasons are so short, the personnel changes much more quickly than for full time jobs in in groups that try to have regular rosters. And many groups use a combination of regular part timers and pick up musicians. The Houston Grand Opera (a misnomer if there ever was one) has an orchestra of only about 50 musicians on its roster. They fill out the ranks with temps if they need more players. There are many such examples.
Given the nature of this discussion, I should explain that in my post above, by musicians I mean the orchestra players. 50 is a very small number for what should be a major house. In Europe, only small provincial houses have such small orchestras — so the number is odd for Houston as America’s fourth largest city.. The Vienna State Opera, by contrast, has 148 orchestras positions. The Paris Opera 170. The Met has a similarly large orchestra. This is because major houses often do so many performances per week that they have to rotate the services. Opera in LA, with 18 million people in the metro area, and the 3rd largest metro GDP in the world, should have similar numbers, but instead it’s far behind even many little, provincial European cities most people have never even heard of.
I wish I could see the number/ heft of orchestras or operas as a measure of a city’s artistic status. It tells us
, but not that much. I’d put LA and Atlanta up against any European city for hip hop, LA and New York up against almost any for jazz, Glasgow and London for anything on the continent re. rock music, etc. And LA and Vancouver up against most of them for film and TV production
If you want to pretend that nothing has happened to music since Wagner died, fine, but it just reveals what a provincial little ivory tower and white world you live in
Personally, I don’t get the subject of the discussion. Adrian stated a personal opinion that he doesn’t believe he could have achieved the same results in the U.K. or Europe and it now seems to be an argument about how things are funded. Surely in this age of instant gratification and accessibility anybody who is successfully enticing people to buy tickets and go out to enjoy their music and is still doing it effectively after nearly thirty years has got to be doing it right. Therefore, shouldn’t that be where the discussion lies? I love his passion for his genre of music and the way that he speaks out whenever possible to promote it, something I’ve not seen much of outside of sport or the commercial pop industry.
Bingo!
Adrian said, “…I do believe the American system of arts funding, of personal investment, provides a more durable and meaningful model than state funded systems.” He thus discounts public arts funding, a view that is debatable.
Spot on. Thanks, Clive!
Again, and this is a personal opinion, if these smaller independent companies or ensembles enable more people to be exposed to, experience and enjoy this type of music, whether traditional or contemporary, surely the genre benefits as a whole?
That is true, but the issue is whether public arts funding allows for even greater exposure.
I can’t figure out if you’re being pedantic for the sake of argument or if you’re just not getting it. The clue is in the first three words, ” I do believe”. At no point does he discount public funding, as you state, but expresses his belief that, in his opinion; the American system is better.
As for your point. Does public funding allow for greater exposure? Personally I don’t see it. Exposure to me means attending or experiencing and not everybody can afford to spend $800 dollars each to go and see an Opera at The Met or £800 – £2000 to see the Philharmonic at the Albert Hall. When the so called public funding does filter down to the little guys it often has to be subsidized by charitable donations for them to be financially viable. I believe things like Camerata’s Speakeasy, open mic nights or community concerts do a lot more for accessibility and exposure than public funding does.
Well said by Mr. McCaw. Not sure Spence is an anti-public, capitalism-Uber-Alles, Thatcherite avatar of neoliberalsm. Because we actually HAVE these people in this country — not just the pseudo-intellectual Paul Ryan/ Rand Paul/ Gingrich wing but the ant-intellectual faux-populist right wing of Bannon and many — perhaps most — Southern Republicans, They hate arts funding, consider much of what we call culture to be idolatry, mock people who go to arts events and work in the arts (“the cultural elite.”)
So thumping against Adrian Spence for saying he’s in favor of arts education, thinks the NEA should be expanded, loves classical music and has found a way to bring it to audience, but also prefers the US funding system — is pedantry itself
Again, this is what Adrain said, “…I do believe the American system of arts funding, of personal investment, provides a more durable and meaningful model than state funded systems.” If we are to move toward a public funding system like all other developed countries have long had, then such beliefs should be vigorously debated.