This is admittedly a little off-topic, given that it’s not directly about the AFM. But it’s about an issue which does figure into policy discussions within the AFM as well as the symphonic player conferences; namely the role of musicians in orchestra governance.
Drew McManus at Adaptistration did a great job of tracking the story of Marin Alsop’s botched appointment to the music directorship of the Baltimore Symphony. It was a classic example of an orchestral clusterfuck. As such it provided plenty of ammunition to every point of view about orchestras, from those who want to believe that orchestra musicians are sexist union thugs to those who want to paint the Mellon Foundation as hypocrites (yes that does seem to hang on a long chain of inferences.)
Some things seem clear about what happened, though.
Boards and musicians judge music director candidates by different criteria
The relationship between orchestras and conductors is both unique and problematic. Because it is so intimate and occurs on many levels, orchestra musicians’ judgement of conductors is profoundly subjective.
In my experience, we make two judgements. The first is about the quality and degree of authority the conductor exudes. The second is about what it feels like to play for that conductor. The second is more important than the first, although strong reactions to a given conductor as an authority figure can distort musicians’ judgement regarding that conductor’s technical performance.
There are three kinds of conductors when it comes to that judgement. The first is the kind that makes the orchestra sound good and the musicians feel they’re not having to struggle to play together. The second is the kind for whom no orchestra can play well (at least as the musicians judge playing well) and for whom the musicians are having to struggle every moment to hold things together.
The hardest conductors for musicians to evaluate fairly are those for whom the musicians have to work really hard to play together for, but for whom the orchestra plays well. From what I’ve been able to pick up, Alsop may fall into that category. I think their interest in Hans Graf suggests that as well; Graf is a consummate example of the first kind.
Boards and managements use very different criteria for judging MD candidates. First of all, they experience a very different individual than do the musicians. Most people treat subordinates differently than they do superiors, and conductors are human (contrary to widely held belief amongst orchestra musicians). Add to that the semi-magical aura that non-musicians surround conductors with (“I just had dinner with the Maestro!”) and you have a profoundly different interpersonal experience. Then, of course, boards and staffs listen to orchestras playing for conductors rather than experience actually playing for conductors. It’s not necessarily a worse perspective (in some ways it’s better) but it is different. Lastly, boards and managements are charged with looking at abilities beyond the ability to conduct. Image matters, the ability to schmooze matters, the ability to program well matters. Lots of musicians care about those things too, but their primary focus is on how they think the orchestra sounds. Boards and managements focus on different things.
One would think that combining these perspectives would be a logical way to harness these different kinds of wisdom towards a common end, and often one would be right. Lots of orchestras do just that and arrive at music director selections that are reasonable given the choices available to them. It’s not uncommon for the musicians not to be thrilled with the selection either; I can think of several such instances without doing any research where musicians' dissatisfaction did not become public. So why did Baltimore turn into such a mess?
Reading between the lines, I’d guess that two things happened. The first was that the musicians really didn’t enjoy working with Alsop; when 90% of the orchestra, in a survey, expressed the view that “ending the search process now, before we are sure the best candidate has been found, would be a disservice to the patrons of the BSO and all music lovers in Maryland,” it’s a safe bet that those same 90% felt very strongly that Alsop wasn't The One. Tim Page wrote in the Washington Post on July 19 that:
The BSO musicians' request that the search for a conductor continue did not mention Alsop's name, nor did it raise specific concerns about her qualifications for the job. But a letter dated April 21 from Anthony S. Brandon, a board member who has been outspoken in his opposition to Alsop's appointment, to Philip English, the chairman of the BSO board, is specific. It was drafted with the help of other board members, with input from a number of musicians, and copies have circulated freely in circles close to the BSO. English has previously refused to comment on the appointment and he did not return calls yesterday afternoon.
"The overriding justification for eliminating Alsop is that 90 percent of the BSO musicians oppose her appointment," the letter states. "In her appearances with the orchestra, the players say, Alsop has not produced inspired and nuanced performances of standard classical repertory. They cite 'dull,' even 'substandard,' performances of Brahms's Symphony No. 3, Mendelssohn's music for 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 2.
"They say that she either does not hear problems or -- because her technical limitations prevent her from fixing them -- that she ignores them. Her musical sense is inhibited by her own lack of depth as a musician and she becomes frustrated when what she hears in her head does not come out from the players. Upon finding something wanting in rehearsal, she responds with vagaries such as 'I'm not feeling it' (Mendelssohn's 'A Midsummer Night's Dream') or exhorts them with abstractions such as 'make magic' (Brahms's Symphony No. 3).
"When an orchestra believes it is being pushed by unmusical ideas, tempos and phrasing and being told that the orchestra itself lacks imagination, musicians feel they are dealing with a conductor who lacks ideas, conviction and technical skill."
But the real mess-maker was the management. Rather than deal with the opposition, they apparently chose simply to override it and proceed to negotiate a contract with Alsop. I suspect that there could have been a face-saving deal worked out, had there been more time and had there been interest in doing so. But, immediately after a search committee meeting a few weeks ago revealed that there was not going to be a consensus, the news of Alsop’s appointment was leaked - and by "immediately," I mean the very next day. No moss grew under anyone's feet in making sure this was a done deal.
Why the hurry? The New York Times reported on July 20 that
Symphony officials have said they needed to act quickly in appointing Mr. Temirkanov's successor, given the orchestra's financial difficulties. Attendance at its main hall is low, and the orchestra is struggling with a large accumulated deficit.
But, given that Alsop wouldn't start until 2007, that seems a stretch. Why not wait until at least the fall, when the orchestra could have seen the remaining candidates and the musicians could have been given at least the appearance of participated in a complete and mutually-agreed-upon search process?
I think there are two possible answers. The first is that Alsop’s management was pushing for an announcement. The second is what Drew McManus reported on Adapistration:
Several hours after that vote I received an email message from a member of the executive board who was present during that private deliberation and participated in the vote; they recounted those events in detail (the following message has been unedited and is in its original form, the board member in question has expressed that they would prefer to remain anonymous):
At the board meeting today James Glicker said "you need to vote for Marin Alsop if for no other reason to send the message to the musicians that airing our dirty laundry in public is never acceptable, no matter what their reasons. They have acted unprofessionally, and are intransigent (I can't remember all the words he used here) and what would happen if an employee at your company did this in the press?"
A board member said loudly: "FIRED!"
James Glicker said "correct, they would be fired. If for no other reason you need to vote for Alsop to teach the musicians a lesson."
As a board member, I was appalled at the lack of basic leadership skills exhibited by Mr. Glicker and Mr. England. Their presentation and later arguments in favor of Ms Alsop was long on platitudes and void of evidence of her ability to sell tickets and raise money.
And people wonder why musicians are so suspicious of managements that talk about cooperation – or why the Mellon Foundation Orchestra Forum project (which makes large grants to orchestras, including Baltimore, in exchange for their participation in training sessions and other activities to develop, amongst other things, institutional leadership and musician involvement) is regarded with decidedly mixed feelings in the field.
Baltimore is simply one more nail in the coffin of the notion that managements and boards value what their musicians think, or even that musicians are anything to them other than labor: simply and solely workers on the plant floor.
All in all, a very sad day for the American orchestral industry.
These situations will always arise when there is no appreciation for the music by the management. " Never trust an employer"-Fiddler on the Roof.
Posted by: john crocken | August 01, 2005 at 07:45 PM