Dear music deans: you're going to use buzzwords to save the day?

Entrepreneurship. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


This guy, Ian Moss, writes a great blog. Here's his recent take on entrepreneurship in music:

http://createquity.com/2011/11/emerging-ideas-classical-musics-new-entrepreneurs.html#comments

He's a smart guy; it's always well-written and balanced, and he's definitely covering things from a younger, NOT-been-writing-grants-for-20-years-and-can't-talk-normal-speak perspective. But the whole musical entrepreneurship thing is definitely a hottie hot button for me, so I had to pour my normal vitriol all over the fucking table. Yes, and drop the f-word.

Here was my comment which elicited a highly civilized response from Ian, which means I have to grow up for 2 seconds and answer him...



Let me highlight 2 big questions I have, not rhetorical fist-jabs, actual questions:


How does ICE compare to early Orpheus? Why is it so new or different? (Really, I’m curious)

Why did Speculum Musicae dissolve? (They got teaching jobs/kids/old/??)


------
My post:


I have the distinct impression that the current crop of innovators, at least in NYC, is heavily funded by their parents.

Sorry if it sounds like sour grapes, as I obviously don’t have that sort of backing, but it’s not just a simple a matter of “if I had more money, I could do more of my art” but rather, what is possible and sustainable in this field if you’re a middle class participant? Is it reasonable to attempt to build a stable american life in this field? If the ‘meritocracy’ of music is build on such a steep pitch that only the upper class can climb the ladder, then we might as well say that it’s the same aristocratic pursuit as was in old europe. Oh no, wait — people are taking headshots of themselves in front of rusted box cars. Sometimes I forget how egalitarian we’ve become.

I think a VERY rich study waiting to be done is the philanthropy that occurs in the familial setting. The dollars that go into the arts by parents funding their childrens’ study and professional activities. I can’t tell you the number of people I know who DO NOT MAKE THEIR LIVING through their entrepreneurial activities. They are supported, in some cases by their normal-job-working spouses, and in many cases by the financial support of health insurance, apartments purchased, and instruments purchased through their families. I’ll never forget the heated discussion I once had with a colleague who insisted that all she needed to do was cover rent, utilities, and food, and therefore, she was making a living in NYC. Nevermind her wealthy fallback: health insurance paid by parents, retirement guaranteed via inheritance, a lifetime of summercamps and quality lessons from a young age, etc.

How the fuck does classical music belong to everybody when it’s only practiced by rich kids? How the fuck do we expect normal americans to fall in love with music that is infused to the core with upperclass money and values and arcane practices? How the fuck can classical musicians not see the appeal of pop music, it’s most “degenerate” forms, which allow people to express themselves in new ways, without the cumbersome, dinosauric, aristocratic apparatuses of the classical regime? I don’t know, but I’m going to put on my tuxedo and think about it.

There is certainly a burst of activity going today on that fits into the entrepreneurial category. Though we say this at the risk of thinking that we are the generation that invented sex. But I have the nagging questions:

How does ICE compare to early Orpheus? Why is it so new or different? (Really, I’m curious)
Why did Speculum Musicae dissolve? (They got teaching jobs/kids/old/??)

In the quasi-recent NYT article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/arts/music/05musicians.html?pagewanted=all
several pessimistic case studies (people) are examined. The article balances this perspective, essentially entirely with Claire Chase. I seem to remember her saying something to the effect of working with new models, not waiting for work to come in, getting off your butt to make it happen, etc. All good and fine. But what exactly is so different in the SUSTAINABLE sense of the word? How is ICE really any different? Don’t get me wrong – I love that group! They sound amazing! They can play the ‘standards’ as well as anyone, as they proved at this recent Mostly Mozart. But I don’t think they are a NEW MODEL of any sort… (someone happily prove me wrong?)

Even without the support of rich parents, you can kill yourself throughout your 20′s and 30’s, making all this stuff happen, getting your reviews, building your website, and the question is: what will you be left with? (Here’s the answer: BEST case scenario, present day, is a university teaching job. How is that entrepreneurial? That’s institutional, not entrepreneurial.) I really really hope this doesn’t sound like a frothy-mouthed rant from someone who hasn’t gotten the gigs they wanted. Far from it, I’ve been pretty lucky to get what I have. It’s the road ahead that is making me think twice. It’s the realization that I’m one of the few people on this ship who doesn’t have a lifejacket or a spot reserved in a lifeboat.

I think these organizations are very far from proving that something new is afoot. I think they are certainly wearing new clothes, and producing new types of music, and hoping that the perceptions of audiences grow, become pluralistic, and financially giving. But I don’t think we’re there yet.

Honestly, I think the best shot that these leaders in the field have, is securing the middle-class positions that universities and conservatories provide. I hope they do. I hope I do, too.

Now, as far as conservatories catching on to any sort of entrepreneurial trend, someone needs to take them to task in major ways. This really looks like window dressing for institutions that rely on students to buy into a ponzi-scheme. What sort of morality governs these institutions that pump out thousands of graduates into a field that can support hundreds? They are really rubbing shoulders with for-profit vocational institutes, here. Phoenix online looks saintly in comparison. Sending a student into an artistic field with student debt is one of the stupidest (and cruelest) things you can do to someone. At the age of 18, a musician in love with music can’t make that rational assessment, but the administrators who know the field CAN. Med school, law school, b school – ok, I can buy into that. It’s a reasonable investment. But MUSIC school? It’s a flat out gamble!

If Knight, Mellon, Ford, Dorris, or whoever, REALLY wants to shake things up, they should take a critical look at the conservatory system. The conservatories and the orchestras are the institutional pillars of american classical music. The state of classical music falls squarely into their lap. I don’t see them doing anything interesting. I don’t see anything entrepreneurial going on. Just different ways of embalming the same music. New pedestal, same museum.

Which brings us to the individuals which you profile, here. They’ve gone outside the institutional routes (to start, at least). My contention is that this isn’t a sustainable path, unless you have serious financial backing. And even so, traditionally, the most successful get absorbed back into the university system.

Of course, I sincerely hope they succeed. A rising tide lifts all boats.

But the longer I think about it, the more I’d rather just go the pop music route. At least I’d never have to wear a fucking tuxedo. (no, seriously.)