INVISIBLE CULTURE

posted by James Reel

    Veteran San Francisco music critic Robert P. Commanday offers a pointed criticism of the state of classical music coverage in American newspapers:

    Pick any city, look at its newspaper, and you'll find attention to classical music diminished to the basic minimum. It will focus on the "big ticket" events — which, in the Bay Area, means the San Francisco Symphony, Opera, and Ballet, plus the most celebrated visiting artists. As is well-known to any person interested in classical music, such coverage just skims the surface.
    Who's responsible? Newspaper publishers and their editors who have a hand in setting policy and then executing it. ….
    [The] "think piece" has taken the biggest hit. You likely will look in vain for a music essay in the weekend paper. If a Sunday music article is to be found, it will be an exception and probably an advance or "puff piece," meaning a celebrity interview or, at best, a column of CD reviews. The think piece, in contrast, can be on any musical subject—a significant composition, composer, or performing group; an issue or controversy; an unusual or provocative upcoming event or a notable musician involved in it—so long as it is a thoughtful discussion involving interpretation, history, or analysis. It is not an article that is essentially a recycling of publicity material.
    Then there's the decline of investigative music journalism, the hard news that music critics should be responsible for. It was the first to go, and it has all but disappeared. When you read the obituary of a symphony and learn about its bankruptcy, that is usually when you first discover that the orchestra had been in trouble for a long time. The reporting on those facts should have occurred long before, but in fact the coverage of the ineptness of the manager and the incompetence and inattention of the board never appeared.

    In our fair town, the Tucson Citizen doesn’t even recognize the existence of classical music, and the Arizona Daily Star’s coverage is so naïve that local musicians merely smirk and roll their eyes—at least those are the polite responses—when the subject comes up. And this is the response to reviews that are unfailingly rapturous. When musicians don’t take positive coverage seriously, you know there’s trouble.
    Read the rest of Commanday’s commentary here.

COPLLAPSING TOWER

posted by James Reel

    The bankruptcy of Tower Records will have absolutely no impact in Tucson, aside from those few people who order from it online (and they can easily switch to a variety of other music sellers). Tower never established a store here, despite rumors of imminent arrival that had local shop owners (remember them) worried in the 1980s and ’90s. I’m not sure what all the fuss is about; the last time I was in New York, I killed some time by browsing in the classical department at Tower, and didn’t find a single thing I wanted to buy. (I did, however, later emerge from the Metropolitan Opera giftshop with a plump bag of recorded goodies, and I’m not even an opera maniac.)
    Still, the debacle is interesting as a symbol of the collapse of the old order. David Hurwitz has penned a typically cranky editorial on the subject:

The final, ignominious demise of Tower Records, auctioned off in bankruptcy to a liquidator for about $146 million, couldn’t have come quickly enough. For years this dinosaur has acted as a break on the necessary restructuring of the retail sector, the musical equivalent of an acute intestinal blockage. The end was predictable, indeed expected for a decade or more, and the only thing keeping the ship afloat was the support of major labels desperate to justify their expensive and proprietary nationwide distribution networks (for popular music, primarily). No one, not Tower, not the labels, was making money; indeed, between Tower paying its bills in returned product, and labels routinely agreeing to payment terms that amounted basically to a barter or consignment arrangement, the only outfit profiting over the past several years has been UPS and other package delivery services.

    Hurwitz is actually optimistic about the post-Tower future of classical record sales. You can find out why here.

REVIEW: TUCSON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA/GEORGE HANSON

posted by James Reel

    Over the weekend, I learned that two married friends of mine, people who don’t often go to classical concerts, had attended the Tucson Symphony’s program on Friday night, the same night I went. “We looked at each other,” said the husband, “and said, ‘When did Tucson get such a good orchestra?’”
    Indeed, the TSO’s performance of Beethoven and Mahler under conductor George Hanson was quite strong and in many ways even impressive, although that would not surprise anybody who attends concerts more regularly. So many things about the performance were so right that I feel a little ungrateful wishing there’d been an additional dimension to the concert: a more surprising, more personal view of the music.
    Don’t get me wrong; there wasn’t anything dull or routine about the playing. In Beethoven’s Symphony No. 1, phrasing was nicely pointed, tempos seemed just, and the woodwinds had good presence, easily holding their own against the reduced string ensemble (8-8-6-4-2, which would be almost doubled for the Mahler to come). The drawback to using a modest, Beethoven-sized complement in the 2,200-seat TCC Music Hall is that the string sound becomes a bit diffused, as it did Friday.
    Furthermore, Hanson had significantly rearranged the orchestra, dividing the violins left and right, spreading the basses across the back just in front of the percussion on the top level of what look like new risers, and pulling everything to the lip of the stage. Moving the orchestra forward would help the TSO generate a hall-filling roar during the Mahler with improved clarity, and dividing the violins is almost always a good idea in anything. But there’s a problem specific to the TCC Music Hall: Anything downstage, stage left, must struggle to be heard. Usually it’s the cellos that saw away to little audible effect, but now it’s the second violins that suffer. Friday night they sounded fine when playing on their own, as at the beginning of the second movement in the Beethoven, but they completely disappeared into tutti passages. There’s not much Hanson and his players can do about this, short of hiring a wrecking ball, tearing down the hall and starting over.
    That balance issue aside, the performance was secure and efficient, but it didn’t display much character beyond what naturally springs from the page. That’s a good start, not to be discounted—too many dull or inattentive performers seem to do their best to stifle Beethoven’s natural character—but with Beethoven performances as plentiful as they are, it would be nice for Hanson to set his interpretation apart somehow.
    The Beethoven symphony was offered as a classical balance to Mahler’s hyper-romantic Symphony No. 5, but it was a missed programming opportunity. Mahler was a noted conductor as well as a composer, and he took it upon himself to “retouch” many scores by his forebears to make them more effective for his contemporary orchestra. I don’t think he messed with Beethoven’s First, but he did expand Beethoven’s Op. 95 string quartet and all of Schumann’s symphonies, the first or fourth of which would have fit comfortably onto this program in place of the Beethoven First. This would have given us a broader picture of Mahler’s artistry, while still providing the necessary stylistic contrast.
    The bulk of the concert shifted to the second part, devoted to Mahler’s Symphony No. 5; it’s almost three times as long as the Beethoven, though hardly a note is superfluous. Hanson is a very effective Mahler conductor, and this performance of the Fifth brought clarity to the music’s structure without downplaying its sonic and emotional effects. The first movement is very nearly a trumpet concerto, the solos played superbly by Ed Reid. Hanson and the orchestra brought a confident, almost imperceptible swagger to the funeral-march theme, and later played the famous Adagietto at a gently flowing tempo, not lugubriously as used to be common. In this movement Hanson made good use of modest rubato, usually drawing out ascending figures for extra expression.
    The entire performance was well balanced, from the loudest to the softest extremes, and took Mahler’s emotional outpourings seriously. Still, I kept wishing for just a little bit more—more indulgent portamento from the strings, a heightened sense of angst and neurosis. But there are more good ways than one to play Mahler, and it isn’t entirely fair of me to fault Hanson for not doing it my way when he and the orchestra put across his own slightly more reserved interpretation so effectively.

TSO WEB SITE, CONTINUED

posted by James Reel

    Last time, you may recall, former Tucson Symphony employee Jan Crews criticized Drew McManus' low ranking of the TSO's cyberspace presence in his annual survey of orchestras' Web sites. You might want to go here to review Jan's comments, with links to the original material, because now Drew has sent me this response:

    Although I’m always disappointed to see orchestra administrators become upset with their rating in the annual website review, I’m happy to say that I can count the number of organizations that expressed a level of displeasure similar to that which Jan expressed on one hand. In fact, many organizations that received lower scores in previous years have successfully used the review as tangible evidence in convincing their executives that the organization needs to direct increased resources to this important point of contact with their patrons. And among a number of groups, the results have been fantastic.
     Orchestra staffers and middle managers are underpaid and overworked, but we all decide to do the work we do for the reasons we feel justify the experience. At the same time, I can understand why these pressures can make those responsible for their organization’s website upset with a low score; however, I think it would be useful to point out a few things based on Jan’s comments.
     First, the review is designed to allow smaller budget ensembles to perform on an even playing field compared to their large budget peers. In fact, there were several organizations with budgets that are comparable or even much less than Tucson’s which scored much higher and there were larger budget originations which scored lower.
     For example, the Milwaukee Symphony, an organization with a budget more than three times the size of Tucson, finished one place lower than Tucson. However, the Las Vegas Philharmonic and the Colorado Springs Philharmonic both have budgets that are half that of Tucson but they scored much higher.
     It’s worth noting that both the organizations in Las Vegas and Colorado Springs scored lower than Tucson in the 2005 review but managed to improve their sites enough to score higher in the 2006 review, all while continuing to have an annual budget that is half that of the TSO.
     Next, I wanted to point that that the TSO was notified about the review. All communication was sent to sdebenedette@tucsonsymphony.org, who received a copy of the same messages that were sent to every orchestra in the review. Those included email notices about the review survey, the reminder as the survey deadline approached, the review launch, and a notice about the special recognition awards article. I’m sorry Jan felt slighted that I didn’t contact her directly but it is standard policy to contact the official press representative for an ensemble when delivering announcements or requesting information.
     Finally, I would challenge Jan’s notion that improving their website would not lead to improved revenue. In fact, the experiences from peer ensembles demonstrate otherwise. A number of ensembles reported increased ticket sales and donations as a result of improvements they made to their websites following previous reviews. You can find that information in the material the respective organizations provided via their website review survey.
     I hope this helps Jan and the rest of the TSO staff see how they can take advantage of what the review offers. And in response to Jan’s criticisms, the reviews are not designed to be heavy handed, rather, they are honest evaluations conducted across an even playing field. Everyone that views the results will notice that big budget organizations such as the L.A. Philharmonic received low scores right along with the TSO. Furthermore, I do offer a great deal of pro bono advice and assistance every year to ensembles on a variety of issues, including that of website development. One example of this was following the 2006 review, I was happy to assist the LA. Chamber Orchestra with issues related to improving their online security.
     When we reached a point where I couldn’t spend any more time with the organization in good faith without being compensated for my services, I directed them to contact some other orchestras that I was aware of which had gone through similar issues they were experiencing. I also indicated that they may want to investigate technology grants that would allow them to direct increased resources into developing their website. This way, if they decided to employ my services as a consultant they could but at the same time, they had options available to them which would cost nothing and hopefully provide them with the information they needed to adequately complete their task.
     Another aspect of the reviews is the fact that they are published free of charge and without registration. Furthermore, they are available to anyone with access to the internet. Neither I nor any of the other bloggers at Arts Journal are compensated for the time and effort we put into our respective columns so there is no monetary gain on my end for the enormous amount of time involved with producing the reviews. The reviews exist as a service to the entire field that allows ensembles to see how they compare to their peers and to help identify components of their website which are strong and those which could use improvement. To this date, there is no other resources, free or pay, that offers this much assistance.
     Additionally, each organization will determine the value they place on their website and how it functions as a point of contact with their audience. My experience dictates that it is an extraordinarily valuable resource and will continue to grow in value as more and more potential patrons become accustomed to gathering their information from online sources.
     In the end, the internet is a much less expensive option for reaching out to an audience and staying connected with them as opposed to traditional marketing methods. All of the orchestras that score high in the review are proof to that as they continue to use their website to help lower per-ticket marketing costs and increase annual fund donations. As such, the amount of resources an organization directs toward their website is a choice, not a constraint.

MY WEEKLY READER

posted by James Reel

    With Thursday comes my appearance in the Tucson Weekly. Two stories this time. First, anaother in what looks like it’s becoming a weekly series on local gay theater:

    Eugenia Woods is producing four new plays in a single weekend, but she's not thinking of the project as merely a theater event.
    "This is a chance for the community to come together and expose themselves to stories that will give them a sense of the real issues that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families in our community face," she says.
    The key word in that sentence is "families." Woods' Stark Naked Productions is presenting First Words: Relativity, a festival of plays all about "the strengths and challenges of LGBT family life."
    And importantly to Woods, those families extend well beyond a couple setting up housekeeping together.
    "Some people may have been estranged from their family of origin, and they've had to be very creative in forming families of their own," she says. Families wind up including lovers, friends, adopted kids, and parents and siblings at varying levels of acceptance of LGBT life.
    Families are tremendously important, regardless of one's sexual orientation, Woods asserts. "It's a wild world, and without that unconditional support, that faith other people have in who you are authentically as a human being, we will be manipulated by fear-driven and commercially driven dictates. I rely on my family to mirror my own truth to me, and accept that truth, regardless of whether it's comfortable for them."

    You can read the whole story here, but be patient; pages are taking ridiculously long to download today.
    I also have a review of Tartuffe at the University of Arizona, in a limber translation by the UA’s own Harold Dixon. The important sentence: “The UA's Arizona Repertory Theatre has mounted a winning production of the classic, its only little flaw being a tendency to argue too hard for the story's pertinence.” Find out more here.

VAPORWRATH

posted by James Reel

    Computer freaks sometimes use the term “vaporware” to refer to software that some company like Microsoft announces with much ballyhoo but never gets around to actually releasing. Maybe we should apply the term “vaporwrath” to indignation and denunciation based on complete ignorance of something that has offended in absentia.
    Consider violinist Ilkka Talvi, blogger and former concertmaster of the Seattle Symphony. He was forced out in a highly publicized to-do in which music director Gerard Schwarz claimed that Talvi had been playing badly, and Talvi acknowledged that his playing was substandard, because the orchestra administration was forcing him to use an inferior violin provided by an influential donor. Talvi felt he wasn’t being treated fairly in the press, so he started a blog to tell his side. That was some time ago, and now his blog tends to address follies elsewhere in the world, just about anyplace other than the Seattle Symphony.
    But this week he has been moved to post on the latest controversy at the orchestra:

Recently, colleagues of mine have been accused of terrorism in the workplace, according to local papers. I haven’t read the stories, but have been told about them by many of these people. They claim the accusations are false, and were purposely planted in the media with the help of reporters, who either wanted to stir trouble, help their friends or had other motivations. To an outside observer, the ‘facts’ as they supposedly have been reported, sound rather retarded and created by someone with an elementary or middle school mentality.

    OK, let’s get this straight. Talvi can’t be bothered to pick up a copy of the Seattle Times, or look at it free online, and read the actual story. Relying only on hearsay, he proceeds to denounce journalists for anything ranging from mere sloppiness to hidden agendas.
    Well, you can read the main article by following this link. If you’d prefer not to do that much research, here’s how it begins:

    Vandalism, mail tampering, a razor blade, anonymous threats — it all sounds like something out of a "Sopranos" episode.
    But it appears to be musicians, not sopranos, who have been targeting their Seattle Symphony colleagues with anonymous acts that one player calls "orchestral terrorism."
    There haven't been any injuries and the police are not involved, although the symphony's acting executive director, Mary Ann Champion, said Benaroya Hall security is working on the matter.
    She said she told symphony members at a meeting Friday about the vandalism and threats and said that "this behavior is not tolerated."

    So, first of all, therte’s a quote from the orchestra’s administrative head acknowledging that something is afoot and that internal security is investigating. Later in the story, musicians are quoted by name—not, thankfully, anonymously—about how certain cars have been keyed and razor blades have found their way into the mailboxes of musicians on the “wrong” side of the argument over whether or not to dump Schwarz. Looks to me like reporter Melinda Bagreen did her homework, and has covered both sides.
    But Talvi doesn’t know that because he hasn’t bothered to read the article. So by ranting about something he hasn’t looked into himself, merely relying on the comments of friends in the orchestra with their own ax to grind, he makes himself look like a petulant fool.
    Get this straight: You have no right to denounce something if you have no first-hand experience with it. If you think some horrible book should be removed from the school library, read the book before you call the superintendant. If you think some movie will offend your religious sensibilities, at least give the movie itself a chance to disgust you rather than rely on rumor. If you think the press is biased, look at its actual reports, then offer some examples and facts to support your position and set the record straight.
    If you are ignorant, your opinion is worthless.