Dissonance
An orchestra, like any large organization, is prone to periods of disharmony, but sometimes the conflicts reflect a much larger issue than the usual ebb and flow of the complex interrelationships, as discussed in this New York Times article.
There are a multitude of directions from which to approach a response to this, and I couldn't in good conscience start without saying that I have a great deal of sympathy for both sides in this situation. Being married to an orchestral musician (my husband is acting principal horn of the Richmond Symphony) and hearing, on a daily basis, about the difficulties of symphonic life from an insider's perspective, I probably have a better understanding of and deeper sympathy for musicians than the average conductor. On the flip side, being a conductor and having many friends in the conducting field, I have a definite perspective about life on the podium.
The level of discord (and apparent disfunction) in Seattle seems dangerously high. At the root of the matter is the way in which music director Gerard Schwarz appears to have asserted (and maintained) his authority. Schwarz is known as a savvy businessman; a hands-on music director heavily involved in the fundraising aspect of his position and a man with many key allies on the Seattle Symphony Board. From the Board's perspective, Schwarz has done much to build the orchestra, maintain an active recording schedule for the ensemble and establish a loyal audience (and donor base.) From the musicians' perspective, a 2006 survey shows, the orchestra wants new artistic leadership.
Being a music director is so much more than being a conductor; the expectation placed on an individual in this position is basically super-human. Not only must one be a musician of the highest level; one must also have a certain amount of political savvy, financial understanding and managerial overview of the organization, as well as well-honed mediation skills. Understandably, no-one can be all things to all people, and a conductor, like any other person, may have better skills in some areas than in others. The main issue, then, is aligning the skill sets of a particular conductor to a particular organization. And even if the alignment is made, as with any relationship, things can change - people (and orchestras) often need to move on.
All these things being understood, what troubles me most about the Seattle situation is the apparent hostility and the reported physical malice of the situation, from scratched cars and scalding coffee purposefully situated in a mailbox to threatening phone calls. When this level of enmity is present, all sense of civility and decorum is lost, which is an odd notion for an orchestra, an organization whose very core mission is the product of decorum, order and tradition. How can one possibly make music with such rancor in the ranks? And if there is such dissension, how can one establish and maintain an organizational mission?
I don't really have a conclusion or a pat answer to any of this. What I can assert is that in my experience, it is dangerous to view these affairs in absolutes of black and white. Acrimonious court cases are becoming more commonplace in our litigious society, which makes me wonder if we are simply standing up for our rights or crying wolf at every perceived wrong that befalls us. (And it would seem to me a near-impossible task to be a working musician, regardless of extenuating circumstances, with a severe anxiety disorder; we work in a constant high-pressure situation unkind to this type of condition.) But perhaps a regime change is in order - and then the question becomes, how could this now gracefully be accomplished??
There are a multitude of directions from which to approach a response to this, and I couldn't in good conscience start without saying that I have a great deal of sympathy for both sides in this situation. Being married to an orchestral musician (my husband is acting principal horn of the Richmond Symphony) and hearing, on a daily basis, about the difficulties of symphonic life from an insider's perspective, I probably have a better understanding of and deeper sympathy for musicians than the average conductor. On the flip side, being a conductor and having many friends in the conducting field, I have a definite perspective about life on the podium.
The level of discord (and apparent disfunction) in Seattle seems dangerously high. At the root of the matter is the way in which music director Gerard Schwarz appears to have asserted (and maintained) his authority. Schwarz is known as a savvy businessman; a hands-on music director heavily involved in the fundraising aspect of his position and a man with many key allies on the Seattle Symphony Board. From the Board's perspective, Schwarz has done much to build the orchestra, maintain an active recording schedule for the ensemble and establish a loyal audience (and donor base.) From the musicians' perspective, a 2006 survey shows, the orchestra wants new artistic leadership.
Being a music director is so much more than being a conductor; the expectation placed on an individual in this position is basically super-human. Not only must one be a musician of the highest level; one must also have a certain amount of political savvy, financial understanding and managerial overview of the organization, as well as well-honed mediation skills. Understandably, no-one can be all things to all people, and a conductor, like any other person, may have better skills in some areas than in others. The main issue, then, is aligning the skill sets of a particular conductor to a particular organization. And even if the alignment is made, as with any relationship, things can change - people (and orchestras) often need to move on.
All these things being understood, what troubles me most about the Seattle situation is the apparent hostility and the reported physical malice of the situation, from scratched cars and scalding coffee purposefully situated in a mailbox to threatening phone calls. When this level of enmity is present, all sense of civility and decorum is lost, which is an odd notion for an orchestra, an organization whose very core mission is the product of decorum, order and tradition. How can one possibly make music with such rancor in the ranks? And if there is such dissension, how can one establish and maintain an organizational mission?
I don't really have a conclusion or a pat answer to any of this. What I can assert is that in my experience, it is dangerous to view these affairs in absolutes of black and white. Acrimonious court cases are becoming more commonplace in our litigious society, which makes me wonder if we are simply standing up for our rights or crying wolf at every perceived wrong that befalls us. (And it would seem to me a near-impossible task to be a working musician, regardless of extenuating circumstances, with a severe anxiety disorder; we work in a constant high-pressure situation unkind to this type of condition.) But perhaps a regime change is in order - and then the question becomes, how could this now gracefully be accomplished??
Labels: conductors and conducting, orchestra culture, orchestras not named minnesota, the business of music
posted by Sarah at
12:11 AM
3 Comments:
In writing that “it would seem to me a near-impossible task to be a working musician . . . with a severe anxiety disorder” you imply, not so subtly, either that Mr. Kaman is lying, or that if he isn’t, he can’t adequately do his job. But what about luminaries like Vladimir Horowitz or Sir Laurence Olivier, who unquestionably suffered from severe anxiety disorders? Do you imagine the ranks of symphony musicians to be devoid of similarly afflicted persons, though less talented? If so, you are simply mistaken.
As a member of the Seattle Symphony, I think the NYtimes article accurately presents the current morale in the orchestra. But the article leaves out an important fact that was also kept from the local media here: the allegations of "orchestral terrorism" were investigated by a 3rd party, hired jointly by the musicians' union and management, and found NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. I understand this blogger's perspective because, as happened here in Seattle, the Times reported it as fact. I'm sure the management of the SSO would love for the world to believe that we are all undisciplined hooligans, but that's not the case.
Anyway, the Times article is more about the soured relationship between the musicians and music director. Many great things have happened here in his tenure, but most of them do not have to do with music. While I agree that a music director's job is more than conducting, I think conducting ought to be a high priority. 24 years is far too long for ANY conductor and especially when there is so much missing musically, I'm sure everyone can understand why the musicians here are desperate for change.
Just to clarify: my blog post, as Anonymous #2 points out, is a response to an article I read and to the information contained therein. I assume accuracy in reporting, and if there is a misrepresentation for whatever reason, I'm always interested in hearing what the correction would be.
In response to Anonymous #1, I am in no way implying that Mr. Kaman is lying, nor that he could not do his job. In my final sum-up of the situation (which begins "I don't really have a conclusion" - because, really, how could I? It is complicated situation and I am just responding to a very limited amount of information in this particular article), my only point is that in situations like these there are usually no absolutes of black and white - most of it resides in the grey area, up to interpretation depending on an individual's perspective.
Thus my comment on our litigious society (particularly libel suits, which are dependent on perspective and perception). Thus my comment about how extremely difficult it is to be a musician with severe anxiety disorder (and how this condition would necessarily influence one's perception of everything around them, including one's workplace - for more on anxiety disorders, the National Institute of Mental Health has a very good general webpage on the topic.)
Is it impossible to be a performer with severe anxiety disorder? No, but it sure makes it difficult (Both Olivier and Horowitz found their performance anxiety to be so debilitating that they could not take the stage for years - Horowitz for over a decade). Would one's anxiety disorder affect the way one perceived one's treatment in the workplace? Certainly a possibility. Do either of these apply to Mr. Kamans? I have absolutely no idea. They are, however, fair topics for discussion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home