What’s in this post:
- Classical music press releases have to bring the music vividly alive, because they’re going to be read — crucially read — by many people who aren’t classical music specialists
I’ve heard that classical music publicists are talking about what I’ve been writing, posts that say these publicists aren’t as effective they should be. So I thought I’d expand on these posts (which are here, here, and here). To say more about why I’m concerned.
And, maybe, to help the many people who’ve agreed with me, and think, as I do, that we need to do better.
So start with this. Who are publicists’ press releases going to?
Let’s look at the Boston Symphony press email I didn’t like (see the third post linked above), the one about streaming performances from Tanglewood. I thought it talked about one of the works to be streamed — the Mozart E flat symphony — in a way that couldn’t interest anyone:
The Symphony No. 39 is the first of a set of three (his last symphonies) that Mozart composed in rapid succession during the summer of 1788.
I suggested this rewrite (not claiming it’s especially good, but just trying to show a more compelling way to write):
One long-ago summer, in a burst of inspiration, Mozart wrote his three last symphonies. One is intense, another one is grand. And this is the endearing one, warm, enriching music for a summer night today.
The commenter, identifying himself as a classical music journalist, said he’d be insulted to get such an email, since he already knows the music.
The buried assumption
Lurking here is the unspoken assumption that these releases are for classical music journalists. And maybe that’s true, by which I mean that maybe that’s who publicists mean to target.
But the trouble with that is that there aren’t many classical music journalists working anymore in mainstream media. Very few newspapers have classical music critics these days. The BSO email at least in theory had national scope, or even international, since anyone can stream these performances.
But I’d also think that media in the Boston/Tanglewood area — Massachusetts, northeastern NY state, and outward into New England — would be important targets.
And these media outlets — local and regional newspapers, local and regional TV — very likely won’t have anyone on staff who knows classical music.
So the release would do better written in a way that could bring the music alive for people who don’t know it. Who, overall, are the most important people the classical music world can speak to, the people who might make up the new audience we so badly need.
And it’s not just this release
It’s everything written about classical music. If people who don’t know classical music keep getting meh press releaees, with nothing in them to interest any person with any spirit, any involvement with the world, then all of classical music suffers.
Because we’re not just flacking the project du jour. We’re representing all of classical music, in every public communication we make. That’s a big responsibility. If we fail in it — if we can’t bring classical music vividly alive — then we’re failing our art.
And to conclude…don’t forget the editors!
So one last thought. There are, of course, some big media outlets that do have classical music specialists. The New York Times, for instance, and the Washington Post.
But a newspaper with a classical critic may also have — is likely to have — editors who don’t know classical music. (The Times is an exception, since it has a specialized classical music editor, but that may be unique in the media world.)
There may also be an arts reporter, who likewise may not know classical music.
So if you’re pitching a story to one of these fortunate outlets, one with a classical music journalist on staff, remember that no story gets published without an editor’s agreement.
Which means you have to sell the editor as well as the classical music writer. Which means you need, once more, to bring classical music alive in what you write. Or else the editor you need to get on your side will think that nothing important is going on.
This may help. Seems there’s a confusion about press releases that are sent to classical music writers/critics/editors and a better option to send to music generalists and arts feature writers/editors. While I agree that all press releases could be better, I think most classical music specialists would find your suggested retelling of a release more of a parody. “One long-ago summer, in a burst of inspiration, Mozart wrote his three last symphonies. One is intense, another one is grand. And this is the endearing one, warm, enriching music for a summer night today.” I think – and I may be wrong – that those critics at the top of their game want the facts. As one commenter noted, he knows the music. As he should if he’s a critic.
But for the music generalist writers/calendar editors and arts feature writers/editors, I think a well-developed pitch letter is best: about a musician, a piece, the conductor, the season, etc., along with a link to the release so they have the details as well. You’re absolutely correct that beats (and the fine writers who cover them) are disappearing, and smart publicists are finding ways to cultivate arts writers/editors and generalists to cover their orgs. They are not the same – and not of the same depth as a specialist – but as you build a new stable of writers, you cultivate new audiences as well.
If these critics are truly at the top of their game, then they know that classical music is threatened, and that if it doesn’t find a new audience, it won’t survive. So they’d welcome press releases that could help develop a new audience. I know I felt that way when I was a critic on top of my game. That was some years ago; the need is even more urgent now.
Maybe not a practical idea to write and send two press releases for the same item, one for specialists and one for generalists. First, you’re now spending twice the time, expending twice the effort. And how do you know which person on your press list belongs in which category? How much knowledge can you have of local and regional media outlets all over the US?
Hi Greg:
I didn’t suggest sending two separate press releases. I suggested only one release. Publicists can send that release to the classical music editors/critics, who know the music. Some will only review. Fewer critics may preview as well.
Separately, the publicist can create pitch letters specific to each publication. Each pitch is well developed, offering a fresh focus. This can be time consuming but not so time consuming for most experienced publicists. Pitches are effective for garnering coverage and selling tickets. And, if you have three newspapers as well as other media outlets in a city, you’ll want to offer each one something a bit different for feature coverage. With each pitch, the publicist can send a link to the press release, the same press release received by the critics.
Well, I wonder how many publicists have the time or energy — or, most of all, the will — to do both things. i’ve been on the inside of this some, and a publicist who did what you suggest would be impressive.
I’m still not clear about why the classical critics should receive something so limited. Especially, broadening the scope a little, because what we need (including me now in my former role as a critic) is information about more than the music itself. How many releases have I gotten over the years about performances and recordings of standard works, without a word about why the recording might interest me? As a rule, all I see is boilerplate about how “acclaimed” the performers are, or other words to that leaden effect.
Here’s an example. Some years ago, I got a phone call from a publicist asking me if I would review a recording of all the Beethoven sonatas, by an estimable pianist whose name, whatever respect we might have for him, doesn’t evoke an immediate urge to hear him play. I asked what approach the pianist took to the sonatas, what there was about his playing that might interest me. The publicist fell silent. Hadn’t a clue, evidently.
Every once in a rare while comes a publicist who can say something specific — and even vivid — about how someone plays. I guarantee you that gets my attention. But wow, is it rare.
Well, you make great points and I can’t argue with them. Publicists can do a better job at illuminating, sharing points of knowledge and insights. A publicist who can’t answer your questions hasn’t done the job. I’ll say that there are many publicists toiling away on those pitch letters, doing the research, and finding the angles and hooks because like you, they love the field they cover. (Many of them hail from the newsroom.)
Great discussion.
I find another buried assumption in this discussion- that the music itself needs to be brought back to life.
Which is what artists commonly think- we take something old, and breathe new life into it (with different ways of interpreting the word “new”).
“If people who don’t know classical music keep getting meh press releases, with nothing in them to interest any person with any spirit, any involvement with the world, then all of classical music suffers.”
But what happens when the press release breathes life into the music that the performance does not? What if the energy and emotion of the performance doesn’t match the predictive description in the press release? In a way, does the press release pre-determine what the audience is going to experience?
Similarly, the excerpted press release (and there may have been more to it) doesn’t mention the Symphony (does its reputation speak for itself?), the conductor, or any of the individual players. Is our best bet to sell the music, and if so, where does that leave performers? Surely pop musicians don’t advertise themselves by advertising the genre.
Well, that’s another item in the long list of things that classical music needs. i’ve written about it from time to time, and talked about it regularly when I speak in public. The performances have to be more vivid.
Glad you brought this up! I was limiting myself to writing about what press releases should do, and maybe shouldn’t have pulled the curtain down, isolating just that subject.
I’ve publicized and marketed Baroque music, new music, theater, and design. My goal is always to treat the critics as the experts or dilettantes they are by giving them a fact laden releases that avoid, as much as possible, spinning the work in my own words or the words of the marketing material. These releases take research and time and are often longer than the traditional press release, BUT they work as their own articles, which is necessary because so many sites merely reprint press releases. They lay out the newsworthy talking points up front and then expand on them in the body (like a news article!). I use quotes from others (artistic director, soloist, composer, positive previous reviews) to color the release and give depth and description to the artwork, as well as retain a sense of authenticity in the release (so it doesn’t feel “spun”). They also cover my own @$$ when a critic gets the facts wrong (very common these days with shortened deadlines, cuts in editorial staff, and rise in DIY blogs).
Here’s an extreme example:
PRESS RELEASE: http://www.som.com/news/renovated_strand_rises_at_the_intersection_of_art_architecture_and_community
INDEPENDENT ARTICLE: https://segd.org/som-revives-strand
Whoops! Wrong link for the “INDEPENDENT ARTICLE” example. Here’s the correct one: https://segd.org/strong-second-act-san-francisco-theater-space
To be honest, if your extreme example showed up in my inbox, I wouldn’t read it. Too long, such a sea of text. And nothing in the first few sentences to grab my attention. The first sentence makes great claims, which to me is something of a turnoff right from the start. Tell me these things after you’ve given me information that supports them.
I think that, to a great extent, releases have to be written the way newspaper and magazine features are, with a lede (as we spell it in the journalism biz) that immediately grabs attention. Using my own long experience as a writer for major publications, and then my experinece as an editor of a national magazine (music editor of Entertainment Weekly), I’d suggest beginning the ACT release something like this. You understand I’m riffing, and not trying to write the actual words I’d use.
“When ACT wanted a new space, they [and here follows an anecdote or a great quote or two about the process of creating the space, or the goals in creating it].”
[Then come some other vivid, tangible, visualizable details. No abstract prose! And only after the reader has a convincing picture of how important this work is would I make the claims in the first sentence of the existing release. Preferably not in my own words, as the press release writer, but as a quote from someone, preferably someone not involved in the project.]
My inbox is full of press releases. I don’t have time to read most of them, past the first paragraph or so. Everyone writing releaes should — just to protect themselves — figure that most recipients will give 30 seconds to the release, unless they’re given a good reason to go further. And then you write so in those 30 seconds you can make the effect you want.
Great advice – thanks Greg!
So glad I could help!