Blogging with the boss

One of my regular stops is Charles Noble’s Daily Observations blog (in part, but only in part, because he is so complimentary about this blog on occasions, and even violists get used to getting applauded). On stopping in this morning, I found some very kind words about a recent post of mine, which made my morning. But, more important (and why this is a post and not a private email), I found an extremely interesting discussion.

Charles had posted a frank retrospective of the Oregon Symphony’s just-concluded season, focusing on the repertoire choices. The OSO’s resident conductor (and former MSO assistant conductor and future Lucky Orchestra music director) Gregory Vadja then posted a comment, which led to a discussion with Charles as well as some audience members.

Then the OSO music director, Carlos Kalmar, got into the spirit of things: He sent Charles an email response, which he allowed Charles to post:

This is a great example of how we have different takes on things — and that’s good. Input is appreciated. Where I have difficulties is when a program that is well thought-out is not acknowledged as a positive and good effort. Charles might have built the program differently — and his programs might have been criticized as well. It’s endless.

On the “Inside” programs and scripts: Yes, I think Charles is right. We should work more on scripts. But none of the conductors/presenters are Bernstein. He was the best ever. The rest of us have our limitations and should work on improving.

A tad defensive, perhaps. Criticism is always hard to hear. But what I found most telling is 1) that Kalmar felt the need to respond; 2) that the response was respectful of Charles’ intent; and 3) that very likely the thought of actually firing Charles never crossed Kalmar’s mind.

For 3) we can thank the job security provisions we’ve all negotiated into our CBAs. Our industry really has internalized the principles that we’ve fought for over the past 4 decades. I’ve just recently begun to wonder if that’s leading to a real change in the fundamental relationship between orchestra and conductor.

This has been a hobby horse of mine for most of my career. About 20 years ago I was asked to do a talk at the Wisconsin Conservatory on stress and musicians. Somewhat to my surprise, I found that I could clearly identify the source of much of that stress. My dad (who was, among other things, the father of the field of developmental psychobiology) and I wrote a paper for Harmony on the subject, based on that talk, which has apparently had some impact on the field over the years, and gets cited (or at least ripped off from) on a pretty regular basis.

The thesis of that paper is that the major source of stress for orchestra musicians is the total lack of control they have over their working environment, due to the feudal relationship between conductor and orchestra.

I’ve noticed over the years, though, that this doesn’t seem to be quite the case in my orchestra any more. For example, musicians (or at least principal players) seem to feel much more free to participate in the rehearsal process by making suggestions to the conductor on a wide range of topics. I suspect that I opened the door to this more than anyone else, although I find now that I do it less than some others (and certainly less directly, except on those occasions when I get really pissed off, which happens about once a year). Our music director is very open to hearing from the principals and very responsive to what we have to say (although he doesn’t always agree, which is not only appropriate but proper). And we deal with guest conductors in pretty much the same way.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens when Edo starts here. Is this new dynamic a function of our collective realization that 1) we’re only powerless if we choose to be; and 2) we’re safe from arbitrary dismissal if the conductor doesn’t like us to tell him/her what to do? If that’s the case, then we may have a new-era relationship with Edo as well. On the other hand, I’m sure that how Edo feels about that will have a big impact on what happens. Conductors can create space for such a relationship, if they choose (and I think more are choosing). But I have no doubt that they can still squash it very quickly as well.

Karl Richter came to conduct the SPCO when I was there. Richter was, of course, a great musician, but he was very old-school and had most definite ideas about how stuff ought to go. We were rehearsing a Handel concerto grosso, and at one point our harpsichordist (who was, and is, a true authority on baroque music and especially how to make it work with that orchestra, as well as perhaps the world’s greatest living continuo player) raised his hand and said “Um… doesn’t this ‘solo’ marking for the celli in measure 43 actually mean a solo for the section rather than one cello?” Richter took out his glasses (which looked like the bottom of two Coke bottles put together with iron rods), got as close as he could to the score as his nose would let him, and said “Ja… but what business is that of the cembalist?”

Thus ended the suggestion, as well as any future suggestions to Herr Doktor Richter. But, as Ormandy said when he wanted the orchestra to play something in Stravinsky long that Stravinsky had written dots over: “poor fellow, he’s dead now. Play it long.”