What they should do to prepare students for classical music’s future. These are things I said in my talk at the Jacobs School at Indiana University.
First, conservatories should make the future of classical music a major topic of discussion.
I’d think this has to come from the top. The conservatory’s dean or president needs to be talking publicly about the problems we face, and about solutions. The subject has to come up in courses. Be discussed by studio teachers. There could be courses specifically about the future, like the one I teach at Juilliard, and the required course called “State of the Art” at DePauw. I’m sure there are others.
And schools should hold public discussions.
Of course conservatories should keep on teaching entrepreneurship.
No need to write much about that, because it’s so common, and so much talked about. But maybe entrepreneurship courses should be required (as they are at DePauw, and maybe elsewhere).
Students should be taught how to speak to their audience, when they perform.
And they should be mentored each time they’re going to do it. (That would take a lot of staff time, I know.)
They need to stress their love for the music they play. And downplay the history and analysis that usually figure so strongly when classical music is talked about.
They should be told to aim what they say at people who don’t yet listen to classical music, or who are new to it. That’s the audience we — and they — need to reach!
Students should be taught not just how to play, but how to perform.
They should make their performances jump off the stage. Or be quietly mesmerizing. They do that by being aware of their audience. They should be taught to make eye contact, to move (if they want to) while they play. To communicate both lively music and quiet, rapt music with their body language.
And they should learn to make the music in every piece stand out, by (for instance) making sure that contrasts really register as contrasts, and that climaxes really register as climaxes. Register in a way that no one could miss.
Students should be encouraged — empowered — to be creative. To do new things with music. To play the music they want to play, in the ways they want to play it. Even if they break with classical tradition. They should learn the tradition, of course, but should also be free to break with it.
I think this speaks for itself. Does anyone think that conservatories are, these days, truly creative places?
Students should study many kinds of music, not only classical.
Because they may well play many kinds of music. Either because they want to on their own, or because they find themselves collaborating with musicians in other genres.
They’ll be more employable if they can play music of many kinds. And finally, they need to be citizens not just of classical music, or the arts, but of our wider culture, including our wider musical culture. They have to know what’s going on with the music the people in our hoped-for new audience — their new audience — already love.
They should be helped to have flexible careers, doing more than just performing at concerts that other people organize.
This, too, speaks for itself, I think. Students can become teaching artists, community leaders through music — so many things. Much talked about these days, of course. They can create ensembles, create institutions. Create performing opportunities. And find performing opportunities that conservatories don’t always talk about, like (as the Jacobs School Office of Entrepreneurship and Career Development showed students) playing in military bands.
Conservatories need to open all of music for their students and graduates.
Conservatories should stream student recitals.
So that students can develop an audience. Which of ties in with the entrepreneurship they should be taught. And it also ties in with what comes next…
…which is that students should be taught how to find a new audience of people their own age.
Many schools teach outreach, or provide opportunities for it. So students play for community groups, or play in prisons, or in schools, especially schools in underserved communities.
All of which is terrific. But somehow we’ve forgotten that students also might reach — and might want to reach — an audience of people their own age. An audience of people like them, with only one difference: These are people who don’t yet listen to classical music.
And of course it’s crucial to reach those people! They’re the audience we need in the future, if we’re going to survive. So why aren’t students taught how to reach them? And then mentored as they go out to do it.
They could even — as I briefly said in my last post — develop a local fan base. These would be people in the city the conservatory is in, or on the larger campus many conservatories are part of.
Students should learn to cultivate this new audience. Not all will be able to do it. But some will! And then maybe we’ll see students drawing 50, 100, 200, 400 people to their recitals. With more watching online, when recitals are streamed.
This may seem unlikely. It’s far from our current thinking. So far, in fact, that the very idea may seem radical. Or unrealistic.
But it can be done. Gerald Klickstein, who runs the Music Entrepreneurship and Career Center at Peabody, told me that as a guitar student he got hundreds of people to concerts he gave. And one of my Juilliard graduate students, a percussionist, told me he got hundreds of people to come to his undergraduate recital at NEC.
So it can be done. All we need is the will, the determination. The belief that it’s possible. And the means to learn how it can be done.
Well, okay, but your article starts off like you are trying to sell yourself, or your course or whatever it you have to offer, and this seems to me, and many others, to be a very bad way to give advice because what it sounds like you are advising is for people to take your course, or for universities to hire you to teach it, both of which only seem to benefit you.
But perhaps this is needed because at a certain second rate institution in CT these “entrepreneur” course is taught by a classical guitarist who rarely gets a gig, and when he does it is usually because he’s pressured one of his former students into getting it for him, and then he misrepresents it to everyone, saying he’s performing in Chicago when in fact the gig is in Decatour.
I’m sure Klickstein is all above board and all but Peabody is notoriously nepotistic. B’more is essentially synonymous with Peabody. You can’t work in the town until you are Peabody approved, which is why everyone not associated with them call them the P-bots. And the concerts are all the same: all Peabody musicians playing all Peabody pieces to an all All Peabody audience, and — gasp: everyone thought it was Peabody perfect. When you have an institution as big and influenctial as Peabody Corp. throwing its wealth around to insure success I’m not sure one can call that entrepreneurship.
So, Sibyl…please vent all you like (as long as you don’t mount personal attacks on other commenters here; personal attacks on me are OK).
But after the smoke clears, I’d love to know some things you like, that you think are healthy for our field. Of course there are many problems in the classical music world, as there are in every aspect of life. Always problems when people get together, always difficulties, always suspicions, always questioning of each others’ motives. I’ve done it myself.
But then we also have to get things done. Do our best to do something good. So surely you don’t spend all your time being negative! There must be things you like, things you think function well, things you think are healthy, maybe entrepreneurship programs that you think do good work, or conservatories that you think aren’t the hall of mirrors you feel Peabody is.
(I guess — to avoid getting drawn into arguments I wasn’t engaged in — that I should say that in my post I said nothing about Peabody, other than to name Jerry Klickstein as the head of the entrepreneurship program there. And even then not to voice any opinion of what he does or what the program does, or what Peabody does, but to note that he got a large audience for guitar recitals when he was a student, at a large conservatory that wasn’t Peabody. Sibyl, you must be really angry at the school, if a casual mention from me got you saying what you said!)
All this said, Sibyl, I’d love to know more about you. Obviously you’ve been around conservatories a lot. You certainly have strong opinions about aspects of at least two of them. I Googled you, out of honest interest in who you might be, but came up blank. The search had no results. Would you care to say something — because of my interest, and maybe the interest of other blog readers — about who you are? I’m not challenging you, or trying to see where you rank in classical music. I’m honestly curious. You’re a person with a strong profile, in what you write, and that always gets me interested.
Something else, by the way. It suddenly struck me, after I’d written all this, that you didn’t say anything about the actual points i made, the things I thought conservatories should do. You questioned my motives for saying it all, but do you think conservatories should do all these things, or some of them, or maybe should run as fast as they can in the other direction? Or maybe do other things that they’re not doing now?
And, you know, I’d think that matters even if I had the worst motives for my post. Suppose you’re right, and that the main thing I’m trying to do is to get schools to hire me. Seems to me that I’ll never succeed if the schools don’t think I’m saying something useful, something they can benefit from, something they agree with. So no matter what my motives are, I’d better do my best to address some real problems.
Thank you for such a measured reply to my comment. You definitely have my attention and respect for taking the time. I never expected it (See more below) So you have already exceeded expectations!
I am sorry if my comments came off as negative because I didn’t mean it that way, at least not entirely. They are contrary opinions, and I think that is part of what I was trying to express. That in this day and age, when one has a contrary opinion, especially to the blockbuster institutions and personalities, some of which you mention in your article, one is labeled as negative. I think this is unfair. If I don’t share the same view as many people (not you, clearly, because you are engaging in this correspondence), but many people in our industry are stuck in a feedback loop of their own PR. And I worry that as more big institutions are using their wealth and influence to rig the system, there is very little that an entrepreneur can accomplish.
My examples are not meant to be pointing fingers so I will keep the names out of it but it is well known that Berlin Prize (in Music) is nothing more than an alumni award for certain graduates of one specific ivy league institution. And the reason I mentioned Mr. Klickstein was simply because he was mentioned in your article, and I think it misrepresents the situation to have him run a career center on entrepreneurship when in fact all he does is use the wealth and influence of the institution to get their graduates positions. This isn’t entrepreneurship this is nepotism. And, it is unfair to represent it as anything other than what it is.
There are many good things happening, and I have been lucky to be part of some of them. But many of these events, concerts, etc, won’t make it on to mainstream press, and I wasn’t surprised nothing came up on Google about me or anything I’ve been involved with. I think in many people’s estimation I don’t “rank” and will never get the consideration. In my dark days I retreat, in happier ones I summon the courage and make more effort. I try new ways and put more effort into these endeavors. Yes, I’d like more audiences, but I can’t work against the massive wealth and power. I’m just a very little fish and this enormous tank of sharks. I’m actually surprised myself I haven’t been eaten. Yet.
I support your notion to “get things done” and I want to be part of that too. I think that I am. But it gets increasingly difficult for the little fish who swim among the sharks. I hope that your initiatives address some of us little fish and I look forward to reading from you.
Thank you,
Sibby
At last, another bold soul willing to challenge the “echo chambers” of conformity!
Sibyl, do not temper your remarks lest they offend… When everyone is running off a cliff the craziest thing you could do is join them (the second craziest would be to praise them).
These old piles of money (Pew Charitable Trusts, Peabody, Curtis, etc.) are just the pet projects of trust fund babies from decades past… Their staff have neither the training nor the perspective to shape the evolution of our art. True, they can elevate a new batch of naked emperors to dance year after year, but they cannot save the Titanic no matter how much they rearrange the deck chairs. They were part of the iceberg, after all…
But do not be discouraged, Sibyl. A revolution is coming. Not all capitalists believe art must suck… And some are prepared to put their money where their mouth is!
However, while I applaud your bold spirit (and I myself am quick to criticize Greg when his artistic thinking is clearly wrong… See our back and forth on John Cage), I don’t think his intentions are too self-serving.
Greg has been working the “future of classical” angle for a LOOOOOOONG time (since well before it became fashionable). Does Greg have a potential conflict of interest regarding his promotion of consulting clients on his blog? Yes of course… But Greg is the fair-minded type to disclose that immediately if challenged, to allow you to publically challenge him by NOT blocking your post at the moderation stage, etc. I gather you’ve figured this out for yourself in reading his response to you.
Greg is ultimately on the side of truth as he sees it, and he has the rare courage to embrace whatever that truth implies regardless of the consequences. Greg is the guy who broke NWA into the mainstream press, after all. He has street cred. He also has an absurd blind spot regarding nihilistic BS music (Cage, etc.)… But he’s ultimately one of the good guys.
Sibby, first, how good to be really talking with you! Thanks so much for replying to me in the same spirit that I replied to you. It’s refreshing simply on a human level (which I keep thinking is really the basis for everything in any case).
it’s so true that many things in the classical music business — many things in any area of life — are rigged in some way. Or not what they’re made out to be. And it’s important to keep a laser eye on that, and to expose the falsity. I’m in a curious position, since I’m both a crusader and an industry insider. And also at my strangely advanced age (how did I get to be 73?) I find myself sympathetic to people who are making even small progress. Because often that’s how things get done. I hate to use the phrase, considering its source, but it fits: draining the swamp. The swamps will never get entirely drained. And yet change occurs. I teach at Juilliard, and many things could be said about the strengths and weaknesses of that institution. And of course have been said. Very strongly, sometimes. Yet it’s also true that there have been some changes in favor of openness and warmth, qualities that historically Juilliard wasn’t so famous for. (You understand the understatement here.)
I think you’re a little unfair to Jerry Klickstein. His great strength, as I’ve seen it, has been helping students bring their personal projects to reality. That’s different from using whatever leverage Peabody has to get them positions. The students I’m talking about aren’t looking for positions (meaning jobs). They want to create new situations on their own, usually without any institutional support. Jerry is really good at mentoring that.
On a related note, I wouldn’t automatically link him with Peabody’s administration and its goals. Many people within large institutions can be independent operators, even while they do their institutional job. And not all may fully share the institution’s outlook or goals. I won’t speak specifically of Jerry, since it would be him who should make any statement about his position at Peabody. I just make this as a general point.
Something worth noting about the context Peabody is in would be this. Regardless of what Peabody does, there have been a lot of new musical initiatives in Baltimore — small opera companies, new music groups. That many of the people involved would be Peabody students would only be natural. As it would be that Peabody faculty might sometimes be involved. But these groups as far as I know have sprung up without Peabody’s involvement, independent of the school. Their proper context, for me, would be the eruption of such small groups all over the US. Though it’s a story that needs to be told with some nuance. The good part is that the groups exist, and can do terrific things. The less good part is that most of them pay their musicians almost nothing, and that their existence is really possible only because there are so many unemployed conservatory graduates. Who hence have time and impetus to form or perform with new groups, and are happy for the opportunity, whether they get paid or not.
But that’s digressing a bit from the Peabody/Baltimore story. I think it’s good to be “granular” (popular buzzword these days), and not treat the overall picture of some situation as the entire story. Sometimes great things happen in the cracks!