Our "Gelded Age"

This is my reply in the comments of a post from the Minnesota Orchestra Blog
Minnesota Orchestra Blog
Friday April 10th


My response:


I'm sorry if my post was taken personally. The sarcasm about Gershwin was not directed towards you or your esteemed colleagues, but towards our industry as a whole. (And I'm sorry if anybody reading loves Gershwin, but...well...nevermind, I won't even address that softpedalling towards "mass appeal")

Artistic integrity IS central, germane, and relevant to a discussion of the business model. How could it not be? It's the *Raison d'Etre* of business model that supports it! This supposed 'firewall' between 'talent' and 'administration' is a plague upon us.

100 bored-as-hell musicians might be a crass way to put it, but let me ask, when is the last time you were able to take an artistic chance on stage? I mean, a chance that put your artistic capital at DIRECT risk? A situation, where say, you developed a personal artistic statement/product/interpretation that varied from 100 years of precedent, but which you believed in, and which you believed shed light on a facet of the work you were dealing with. Only one person on stage can do that, practically speaking.

Symphonic music has a particular divinity that can't be achieved without the synergistic euphony of 100 highly talented instrumentalists. But like anything, it can be overdone. The individualistic sacrifice required to achieve this artistic product forces musicians to play it safe AS ARTISTS. That small amount of Safety is stored in the body, like mercury, and becomes a narcotic in the doses that the American symphony orchestra administers.

It's why orchestras are unionized and string quartets are not. (For the record, I believe that in concept, unions are very necessary, and a symptom, not cause, of deeper conflicts)


How about this:
Wouldn't you rather be part of a healthy ecosystem of solo playing, chamber playing, orchestral playing, and teaching? (yes, operas, cantatas, and more) Wouldn't you rather see your salary go towards these diversified activities? (That's an honest question, not rhetorical.)

Why don't orchestras give their musicians "20 Percent Time" like we see at Google? Yes, it's a silly question given the current status quo. But I think it illustrates the vast chasm between the notion of individualism, cherished and forever embedded in American myth, lore, and practice, and the clashing of that notion with the internal culture of our symphonies.

BTW, nobody likes to see a chicken little screaming his little head off about how "classical music is dying." No need to kick that fossilized, equestrian corpse. But let me say this, the real chicken little, should have been screaming during our recent "Gilded Decades" of finance and the generation of enormous private wealth (i.e., did philanthropy increase correspondingly?) Because now, ALL non-profits may be looking at riding it on down the "Gelded Decade."

To Recap:
I love music. I love symphonies. I love musicians. I love chocolate. I think the way our system incorporates these things, ultimately, blows donky balls.



PS, @ Mauskapf:
A Harvard composer (unnamed) once described the american conservatory system as a ponzi scheme. When you consider that the culture fosters the widespread idea of education as a "backup" or "safety net" (can we just call it bastard stepchild?) to performance, the description becomes quite unfortunately apt.

PPS,
Symphonies aren't generally known for their progressive tendancies:
from Ross's (Ross'? Ross's's? Rosssessss) recent NYer article:
Miles Davis used harsher language when he explained why he gave up studying trumpet at Juilliard: “No white symphony orchestra was going to hire a little black motherfucker like me.”