Your favorite NYT critic rants!
John Thomas
By BERNARD HOLLAND
"I wish I could interest the Environmental Protection Agency in looking
into the symphony managers and conductors -- almost all of them -- who
have so mercilessly exploited the mighty Beethoven Fifth and Ninth
Symphonies, reducing them to pop-culture cliches and deadening their
amazing qualities to the public ear. The record business is failing in
the same way. After 50 recordings of Brahms's Fourth Symphony, Nos. 51
and 52 become irrelevant."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21C41715
(Registration required)
--
-Regards,
John Thomas
Alan Watkins
Perhaps Mr Holland has just listened to the wrong performances or
couldn't be bothered to wait for performance No 53 of the Brahms
Fourth which might have been better than the preceding 52.
He should stop listening to "recordings" and get out more! What has
been a great amusement to an Old Chap over the years is that there
have been many occasions when we played terribly but got wonderful
praise from a "critic" and, conversely, any number of occasions when
we thought we played "well" but got a bad critique.
I would stop reading the "critique" but someone has to keep the score!
My favourite remains a review from a newspaper in Brno which wrote
(from memory): "The orchestra were in masterly form and brought forth
sonorities hitherto unappreciated by this listener........" This was
in a concert which was a living disaster in which several wind players
came in two bars early and (I think) the horn section fluffed
virtually every entry.
This might possibly account for the sonorities "hitherto unappreciated
by this listener" as various sharps and flats collided happily in gay
abandon.
Similarly, the Prague Post reported on the opening night of Swan Lake
on "the magical qualities of Tchaikovsky's score." This was a
performance in which a wind player miscounted and came in a bar early.
Unfortunately this entry is the score "cue" for the brass section who
duly took their cue from that and came in a bar early as well.
At the end of the pit was an Old Chap with no hair who was
methodically counting his way through every bar He took an executive
decision to come in on the right counting (not a bar early) and the
brass suddenly woke up and thought: "Yes, that's where we are."
In the corridor after the performance the music director said: "Thank
you, Mr timpani."
Magical, indeed, except that between the one bar early entry and the
one bar on cue timpanist entry we unfortunately jointly managed to
annihilate the very talented lady harpist.
But it was a very good review.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
HenryFogel
One could pick on many examples of inept music criticism - but two of my
favorite examples were in 1989 in Europe, on a tour of the Chicago Symphony
with Solti conducting. Two German critics, in two different cities (one was
Munich, and I now forget the other one) compliment quite specifically the
clarinet playing in the Schubert Fifth Symphony. Only one problem -- no
clarinets in the Schubert fifth Symphony.
Henry Fogel
David Hurwitz
>One could pick on many examples of inept music criticism - but two of my
>favorite examples were in 1989 in Europe, on a tour of the Chicago Symphony
>with Solti conducting. Two German critics, in two different cities (one was
>Munich, and I now forget the other one) compliment quite specifically the
>clarinet playing in the Schubert Fifth Symphony. Only one problem -- no
>clarinets in the Schubert fifth Symphony.
>Henry Fogel
What a depressing profession this is sometimes--and we've done it to ourselves,
no doubt about that! But really, Holland's rant is just that; I've read so much
nonsense about the 'death knell' of symphony orchestras, and yet the number of
them continues to grow against all odds. Sure, in hard economic times everyone
suffers, particularly purveyors of "luxury" entertainment at great expense for a
(perceived) elite few. But the kind of wholesale generalizations that Holland
makes are so completely unoriginal and, well, cyclical in nature. Doubtless
we'll all be here for the next round.
Dave Hurwitz
Terrymelin
Chicago Tribune. He can't string two sentences together that make any sense at
all or that do not engage in some vendetta he has against some member of the
Chicago arts community.
Terry Ellsworth
Commspkmn
<< One could pick on many examples of inept music criticism - but two of my
favorite examples were in 1989 in Europe, on a tour of the Chicago Symphony
with Solti conducting. Two German critics, in two different cities (one was
Munich, and I now forget the other one) compliment quite specifically the
clarinet playing in the Schubert Fifth Symphony. Only one problem -- no
clarinets in the Schubert fifth Symphony.
Henry Fogel >>
Henry:
But the ones who weren't there played magnificently!
Best,
Ken
REG
bread-and-butter symphonies, and apparently instructions had been unclear,
so that at the end of the exposition half the orchestra went on to the
development and the rest did a da capo. After a few measures of pandemonium,
everything came to a stop, and the engineer said something like, "We'll have
to do that again, Maestro." And Kna responded, "Do you think anyone will
notice?"
"Alan Watkins" <alanwa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:62c8649c.03062...@posting.google.com...
D.G. Porter
Let's recall what he's said about Mahler's Tenth and preparation of
performance editions:
Robbing Graves In Odd Search For the 'New'
By BERNARD HOLLAND
10/18/98
[snip]
Musical restorers with little faith in the future keep burrowing in
the past. The motives range from self-aggrandizement to the thrill of
the chase or sincere dedication to a composer. One applauds Deryck
Cooke's motives for reconstructing Mahler's 10th Symphony, while at
the same time siding with Mother Nature, who in her wisdom allowed
Mahler only the finished Adagio. Potent by virtue of its enforced
isolation, this frightening music is obscured by the walls Cooke
rebuilt around it.
And then there's this chestnut from the same article:
The "new" Ives concerto is a different matter. It was real enough in
Ives's mind to inspire nearly 40 years of tinkering, but I personally
wish that Mr. Porter had left the "Emerson" Concerto to rest in its
untidy tomb: not as a clumsy-sounding finished product but as an
elaborate impulse more interesting to think about than to hear.
Fortunately, and more wisely, the four Cleveland audiences of October
1998 disagreed with this clown.
John Rethorst wrote:
>
> June 29, 2003
>
> How to Kill Orchestras
> By BERNARD HOLLAND
>
> As American orchestras lick their wounds, or die of them, the blame falls
> on fleeing contributors, bad management and disappearing audiences. Maybe
> these are symptoms, not causes.
>
> Real causes? Take the model on which American orchestras are built. It no
> longer works. It survives in a few big cities, but even musical fortresses
> like the Pittsburgh Symphony and the Chicago Symphony are, by all reports,
> leaking blood by the quart.
>
> American orchestras began with a place, not a culture. Simplified, the
> story goes like this: With westward expansion, cities were new and their
> roots shallow. Certain things were needed to keep them from blowing away
> with the wind. For stability, the American city needed street lighting,
> sewers, schools, parks, libraries and ‹ oh, yes ‹ a symphony orchestra.
>
> The free-enterprise system, which worked so admirably to bring the
> American city its new wealth, transferred poorly to the performing arts.
> Local tycoons found that the pay-as-you-go ethic that had made their own
> fortunes fitted not at all. But they had been to New York and Boston, and
> to Europe. "These places have Beethoven symphonies," they said, "and so
> should we." When the American orchestra presented its unpaid bills at the
> end of a season, the wealthy few wrote personal checks.
>
> But then the wealthy few became too many. They had children, and the
> children had children. Family wealth spread sideways; descendants
> multiplied and left for other American cities. They took their diminishing
> share of the family riches with them. Family foundations were established,
> and though arts-friendly at first, they became more interested in AIDS
> research and social reform.
>
> With the great mansion on the hill no longer a reliable source of fiscal
> salvation, local corporations helped with the burden. If U.S. Steel was to
> keep its Pittsburgh executives happy, and if it was to attract new ones
> from elsewhere, it needed a city with first-rate universities, the
> Steelers and the Pirates and ‹ oh, yes ‹ a symphony orchestra.
>
> This remained good business until the coming of the worldwide
> conglomerate: a handful of international operatives buying up the many
> companies that had made their own American cities thrive. Boardrooms in
> London and Geneva could hardly be expected to burn with civic pride for
> the Midwestern city halfway across America. Local, state and federal
> governments offered a little, but not much. American officialdom has
> always been uneasy with any enterprise that cannot take care of itself.
> Now everyone is so strapped financially that giving more, or even as much
> as usual, becomes moot.
>
> With good management, it is supposed, money and listeners will come
> rolling in ‹ again, a symptom masquerading as a cause. Orchestras are not
> sick because they have bad management. They have bad management because
> they are sick. Failing industries do not attract top employees.
>
> One wan and revealing little culprit here is the invention of the
> arts-administration degree, fostering a younger generation that can
> administer but doesn't know what it is administering. The incidence of
> musical illiteracy in symphony offices, staffed with music lovers and
> record collectors, is high. Symphony boards tend toward successful
> businesspeople admirably devoted to keeping orchestras fiscally afloat but
> who, with little knowledge of music or real interest in it, have no
> capacity to fix a purpose or a path.
>
> As for disappearing audiences, no amount of managing will solve that one.
> Classical music has only itself to blame. It has indulged the creation of
> a narcissistic avant-garde speaking in languages that repel the average
> committed listener in even our most sophisticated American cities.
> Intelligent, music-loving and eager to learn, such listeners largely
> understand that true talent and originality must find their own voice.
> What they do not understand is why the commitment to reach and touch
> listeners in the seats does not stand at the beginning of the creative
> process, as it did with Haydn and Mozart. This kind of art-for-art's-sake
> has much to answer for.
>
> Once upon a time, a regenerative process was in motion: the mysterious new
> piece of music that was gradually transformed into the next old
> masterpiece. It still happens, but as an exception, not the rule. A recent
> performance of Schoenberg's Five Pieces on the West Coast was preceded by
> an explanatory lecture from the podium that was longer than the music
> itself. The Five Pieces are almost 100 years old.
>
> The failure of cross-pollinating programs (old favorites standing next to
> new music) is painfully obvious in the way programs are arranged. Schedule
> Brahms before intermission and Birtwistle after, and you will watch
> one-third to one-half of your audience vanish prematurely into the night.
> Program forgotten masterpieces 200 years old, and still, avoidance
> mechanisms kick in. "New" has come to equal "suspect" among wary patrons.
>
> It is nice to celebrate the hip, fresh faces who come to hear Stefan Wolpe
> at the Miller Theater or Bang on a Can composers at Symphony Space. These
> are not, on the other hand, faces you are likely to find listening to
> Rimsky-Korsakov in the symphony halls of American cities. Audiences have
> fragmented. Lovers of the new have their own worlds now. Rejecting the
> new, symphony managements and the patrons who keep them in business have
> fallen back on the tried and true, repeated endlessly.
>
> SO have American opera houses. One is happy watching as they attract new
> listeners for old favorites. But our blind faith in immortal masterpieces
> is just that: blind. "La Bohème" is not a renewable resource. Use it too
> often, and it wears out. The "Bohème" audience, furthermore, likes neither
> "Lulu" nor any "Son of Lulu." So what are opera companies to do other than
> idle in neutral? The wave of new pieces sweeping American houses,
> staggering in their mediocrity, live and die like fireflies.
>
> I wish I could interest the Environmental Protection Agency in looking
> into the symphony managers and conductors ‹ almost all of them ‹ who have
> so mercilessly exploited the mighty Beethoven Fifth and Ninth Symphonies,
> reducing them to pop-culture clichés and deadening their amazing qualities
> to the public ear. The record business is failing in the same way. After
> 50 recordings of Brahms's Fourth Symphony, Nos. 51 and 52 become
> irrelevant.
>
> Fleeing audiences are one more symptom, the cause being a public art that
> has been abandoned by its avant-garde and uses up its given natural
> resources with profligacy. Audiences are not to blame. They are smarter
> than Elliott Carter and Milton Babbitt want to think they are.
>
> American orchestras will keep failing. I feel less for them than for the
> excellent musicians who will be displaced. But face a few facts. American
> orchestras will no more grow than Mother Nature will take the liver spots
> off my hands. We have grown old together. Darwinism is at work, and
> American orchestras must adjust: to smaller dreams, fewer orchestras
> serving wider areas, fragmented listenerships, hopes for some kind of
> government help and, above all, a way of preserving the past,
> electronically if not by word of mouth.
>
> --
> John Rethorst
--
Now on the Porter-Niekum menu:
FRENCH fries (from Idaho probably)
FRENCH-roast coffee (from South America most likely)
FRENCH'S mustard (pretty lame-n-tame but WTF)
FRENCH dip sandwiches at the corner greasyspoon
NO "Freedom ticklers," NO "Freedom kissing," and NO "Mr. Freedom" on
reruns of "Family Affair"!
Edward Waffle
Terrymelin wrote in message
<20030629182055...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
Makes one nostalgic for Claudia Cassidy.
That John von Rhein keeps his position at the Trib shows how unimportant
music criticism is to the Tribune Company.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in news:20030629182055...@mb-m19.aol.com:
Like no previous Chicago journalist has EVER had a vendetta against a CSO
music director?
And how about the Boston Globe's Richard Dyer, who appears to have bought
into the mockera singers and other phony performers?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
Ratwood19
>into the mockera singers and other phony performers?
>
He also worshipped Ozawa, even as Ozawa was clearly burnt out and should have
long since resigned as BSO Music Director. I guess Ozawa's lifetime appointment
meant that Dyer knew he had to be more adoring than deploring, so he made sure
that even his less-than-rave reviews had some apologetic asides. I and many
others in the Boston area lost all respect for him.
And you're right -- Dyer has taken the bait from the Sony marketeering types
when it comes to Bocelli and Church. He probably likes getting the free CDs.
Dan Koren
"Ratwood19" <ratw...@aol.com.rk> wrote in message
news:20030630033743...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
> And you're right -- Dyer has taken the bait from the
> Sony marketeering types when it comes to Bocelli and
> Church. He probably likes getting the free CDs.
>
a) how do you know he is not getting anything else?
b) how do you know he doesn't really like Bocelli
and Church?
dk
JJ
news:20030630033743...@mb-m14.aol.com:
Didn't Dyer make a name for himself by consistently trashing Ozawa early
on? My recollection is that Dyer didn't come around to Ozawa until the
last several years of his tenure.
Jon
Terrymelin
>Like no previous Chicago journalist has EVER had a vendetta against a CSO
>music director?
His vendetta has not been against the CSO music director but someone else. And
I have no problem if the problem is musically-based but his is a personal
problem that borders on the sociopathic. He jealousy and venom wrings from
every word.
He is pathetic.
Terry Ellsworth
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
I was actually thinking of Claudia Cassidy....
David Wesolowicz
John Von Rhein's latest - a departing slap at our beloved Henry Fogel.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0306290357jun29,1,4429724.story
File this under "If you can't say something bad, don't say anything".
Dave
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030630093519...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
the following letters to be typed in
> Speaking of which.....
>
> John Von Rhein's latest - a departing slap at our beloved Henry Fogel.
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-
0306290357jun29,1,4429724.story
>
> File this under "If you can't say something bad, don't say anything".
"The story you requested is available only to registered members."
Edward Brisboy
That's my recollection as well.
Dyer is a strange case as far as I am concerned. His views about
vocalists have always seemed off to me: as far as I can tell, he
actually does like Bocelli, hard to believe though it is.
I've found him usually more insightful regarding pianists. He's
championed the likes of Fiorentino, Tipo, Annie Fischer, Tomsic, etc.,
iirc.
Ed
David Wesolowicz
Henry Fogel: Leaving the CSO in uncertain times
By John von Rhein
Tribune music critic
Published June 29, 2003
Monday is Henry Fogel's last official day as president of the Chicago
Symphony Orchestra, a position he held for 18 years. On Tuesday he moves on
to a new post, president and CEO of the American Symphony Orchestra League,
the New York-based service organization. The same day, his successor,
Deborah Card, moves into his office at Symphony Center.
Fogel, 60, leaves the orchestra as a conquering hero or a fallen star,
depending on how closely you examine his tenure. There's no question how the
board and staff regard him. An effusive tribute in the CSO's program book
concentrates on the departing president's achievements and on his deep
attachment to the institution while ignoring the serious financial problems
he's leaving behind. At the end, the executive director who made himself the
authority figure for the orchestra during the regimes of two music directors
is having it his way, again.
"When I decided to retire from my position," Fogel wrote in his farewell
essay in the CSO program book, "I did so because I felt that after 18 years
I needed a change, and I also believed that a change would be good for the
Chicago Symphony Orchestra."
He is perhaps more accurate than he realizes.
Executive heads of major orchestras are, as a rule, backstage
administrators, tending anonymously to business matters. Music directors are
the ones who make the artistic decisions and seize the spotlight. However,
the orchestra manager can wield sweeping influence -- if the music director
and the board allow him to grab it. Think of Ernest Fleischmann, the
famously rude and ruthless former executive director of the Los Angeles
Philharmonic.
Think, too, of Henry Fogel.
The Chicago Symphony's glib, ambitious, controversial, high-profile chief
executive defined the scope of his job, for better or worse, far more
broadly than any manager in the history of the orchestra. If not the best
orchestra boss in the business, he made himself the most powerful, by virtue
of his mighty forum here and the high visibility he cultivated as roving
Mister Fixit for members of the American Symphony Orchestra League.
An administrator with a genuinely broad knowledge and love of music, Fogel
was directly involved in CSO programming, policy-making and choosing guest
artists. He was the orchestra's chief spokesman and one of the city's most
prominent arts administrators. Inside and outside Chicago, numerous
orchestras and musical organizations have sought his counsel. A lust for the
limelight went hand in hand with a desire to lend expertise.
Many of his side activities -- hosting a weekly radio program on WFMT-FM
98.7, writing record reviews and program notes, stumping for funds on
various symphony orchestra radio fundraisers (a concept he invented),
venting his opinions in musical chatrooms on the Web -- he will continue to
pursue from his home base in Oak Park. And he will teach a course in
orchestral studies at Roosevelt University, beginning this fall.
There are two ways of looking at Fogel's compulsive moonlighting. On one
hand, every time he appeared somewhere else, he got the Chicago Symphony
noticed. On the other, all that moonlighting opened him to the charge that
he spread himself too thin, that he allowed his attention to be diverted
from the institution that hired him, perhaps even from the portents of
internal financial trouble that began to appear in the late 1990s.
Hard times for orchestras
Of course, Fogel is hardly the only U.S. symphony orchestra manager who has
found himself caught between a weak economy and the inability of these
elephantine institutions to respond to rapidly changing times. At last
report, nearly a dozen orchestras across the land have either closed or are
in danger of doing so. Among the so-called Big Five orchestras (Chicago, New
York, Boston, Philadelphia and Cleveland), the CSO posted the largest
deficit ($6.1 million) in fiscal 2002.
In 1985, when Fogel arrived here fresh from managerial successes at the
National Symphony Orchestra, the Chicago Symphony had a popular music
director. It was recording for several labels. It was heard live (that is,
live on tape) each week on radio and sometimes on television. It often
played to sold-out houses. It performed in a hall whose acoustics were of
sufficient quality to please a majority of orchestra players and audience
members, and had long been admired by record collectors around the world.
Little or none of that applies today.
Under Fogel's watch, the CSO has moved from a music-driven management to a
marketing-driven management that has yet to bring in the larger and more
diverse audience he sought to cultivate. Ticket sales remain flat;
subscriptions are falling; new corporate and individual donations have all
but dried up. His administration recently slashed $2 million from its
education budget, which previously stood at $3.5 million, including the
shuttering of the misguided ECHO music education center.
In fiscal 1985, the orchestra, which had nearly $10 million in operating
losses over the previous 17 years, was losing almost $2 million on a $20.7
million budget. The orchestra had the lowest endowment of any major U.S.
orchestra, roughly $19 million. Soon after Fogel took over, the orchestra
announced its first budget surplus in more than a decade. The quick
turnaround remains a key achievement of his tenure.
But a severe downturn in the economy caught him and the CSO unprepared. His
triumph in balancing the books for 14 years turned to ashes in 2002 when the
orchestra suffered the worst fiscal crisis in its history -- a $6.1 million
deficit on a budget of nearly $60 million. The CSO is balancing the books
this year by doing the very thing Fogel deplored when he arrived --
siphoning off money from its endowment (which stands at roughly $160
million).
Like many corporate heads during the '90s boom years, Fogel imagined the
good times would last. The CSO expanded faster than it should have,
budgeting on what proved to be overconfident, unrealistic revenue
projections. Fogel has owned up to the mistake.
Bailing before the deluge?
Although Fogel denies he is leaving under pressure, the timing of his
departure suggests he is bailing before things get any worse financially and
before an expected showdown over a new labor agreement occurs next year.
Salary raises built into the CSO's four-year contract will push the players'
base salary up to $104,000 next season, which will mark the final year of
the labor agreement. Multiply that figure by 110 musicians, add sizable
overscale payments to many of the players and you understand why the
orchestra expects to close fiscal 2004 with a deficit of $4 million to $5
million. Deborah Card, Fogel's successor, will need all the business savvy
at her command to stanch the hemorrhaging red ink.
The same year, the new president must negotiate a new labor agreement that
could turn into a bitter standoff between the administration and the rank
and file over how much management is willing to pay to keep the CSO at the
industry forefront in a shrunken economy, and how many concessions labor is
willing to make to help prevent the institution from sinking into further
debt. Having trimmed the budget of its remaining fat, the board may find
there is nothing left to cut but the gravy from the work agreement.
It must pain an administrator as "musician-sensitive" (his words) as Fogel
to see how distrustful of management the CSO players apparently have become
under his watch. Perhaps there was something about his managerial style the
players felt was high-handed, that made them suspect he wasn't as
pro-orchestra as he had professed to be at the beginning. Never mind his
guaranteeing them a compensation scale that has kept the CSO among the
highest-paid groups of orchestral musicians in the world.
Painful, too, was Fogel's defeat on the electronic media front. The loss of
both the local-national series of radio broadcast concerts and Barenboim's
Teldec recording contract has dealt a severe blow to the orchestra, damaging
its impact and prestige both nationally and internationally.
Before he left office, Fogel offered to match for the CSO musicians the
highest payment any U.S. orchestra makes to its players for local radio
broadcasts (the New York Philharmonic's rate). The orchestra players
committee rejected the offer, insisting they must receive more than any
other American orchestra. Fogel countered by saying such demands were not in
keeping with today's economic realities. Whoever is "right," both camps will
have to meet in the middle before the orchestra can return to the airwaves.
Barenboim brought aboard
Daniel Barenboim was Fogel's choice to succeed Georg Solti and he used his
influence with the board to get him hired as music director on the promise
that Barenboim would lift the orchestra to new musical heights. Twelve years
later, that promise has yet to be realized. The audience as well as
orchestra members remain divided about his conducting and his repertory,
particularly his bias toward Elliott Carter and other hard-line modernists.
Fogel's efforts to balance more difficult new music with such bland
neo-romantics as George Lloyd came across as feeble gestures; in any case,
they have not silenced the dissenters.
Barenboim has attempted to warm, refine and vary the orchestra's sound after
the big, brass-heavy sound favored by Solti. But even though roughly
one-third of the CSO's 110 players are Barenboim appointees, today's
orchestra sounds like neither a Barenboim band nor a Solti band, but a
strange hybrid -- still brilliant when allowed to be, still capable of
eloquence under the right hands, but less consistent and dependable than
before.
The unanswered question is whether the music director may yet inspire the
orchestra and persuade the community to rally behind the CSO as it did in
the glory days of Solti and Fritz Reiner. Until that day arrives, only part
of Fogel's vision for the CSO will have been achieved.
And what of the other half of the legacy he has bequeathed the CSO, the
renovation and expansion of Orchestra Hall into Symphony Center, completed
in 1997?
Fogel was right in one respect. An auditorium built only seven years after
the death of Brahms clearly could not meet the needs of the orchestra in the
early 21st Century. Other Big Five orchestras such as Boston and Cleveland
also have modernized their concert halls. Both did it better.
Most worrisome is the fact that the acoustical revamping that was the
driving force behind the CSO's $120 million project appears to have created
more problems than it solved, compromising the quality of the sound symphony
goers have known for generations. The original acoustical consultant, R.
Lawrence Kirkegaard, has spent six seasons fine-tuning the hall. At
Barenboim's request, Fogel, who admits the "new" acoustics in the auditorium
are flawed, last season brought in another expert acoustician, Russell
Johnson, to render a second opinion. Whatever his verdict, the CSO has yet
to reveal it.
How ironic that the CSO board recently bestowed on Fogel the newly created
Daniel Burnham Award for "vision in leadership" -- an honor named after the
architect whose design for the auditorium was drastically altered by the
hall's reconfiguration, undertaken during Fogel's watch. The remodeling
resulted in more than 50 percent of the original interior being lost
forever. Despite this, Orchestra Hall has not been stripped of its status as
a national historical landmark, even if its standing as an Illinois historic
landmark is still under review, according to Anne Haaker, the state's deputy
historic preservation officer.
Far from becoming Chicago's answer to Paris' Centre Pompidou -- a meeting
place of culture and learning that would beckon visitors day and night --
Symphony Center remains an anodyne reflection of the "edifice complex" that
spurred the creation of so many arts centers in the prosperous 1980s and
'90s -- a busy environment for listening only when there's music in its
halls.
Too long a tenure?
Most music professionals would agree that 18 years is long enough for any
symphony manager to hold so demanding, high-pressure a post as CSO
president. The evidence further suggests the orchestra tired of Fogel just
as he tired of the 12-hour daily grind. When it was clear to all he could no
longer play the hero, he stage-managed his own exit in the most expedient
manner possible.
I believe Fogel was sincere in his efforts to leave it a better, healthier
institution than when he arrived. The reality is that he is leaving it only
a bigger institution. Perhaps if the economy hadn't turned sour, the
operation hadn't grown bloated and the deficit hadn't escalated out of his
control, he would be leaving as he entered, the fiscal miracle worker, the
man with all the answers.
Fogel's successor promises a more low-key, more traditional type of
administration. Card does not seem inclined to put her face on every aspect
of the CSO's operation, as he did. Card is spending the summer familiarizing
herself with the local landscape, seeing how the orchestra fits into the
cultural scheme of things before tackling the tough issues that face the
institution.
A different managerial style, different ideas and different vision could
hardly fail to improve the fortunes of the Chicago Symphony. Indeed, an
executive director committed to giving the orchestra all the glory may be
just what the CSO needs at this critical juncture in its 112-year history.
Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune </>
"Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)" <oyþ@earthlink.net>
wrote in message news:Xns93AA867FE5E...@129.250.170.81...
Samir Golescu
One could answer this Politburo decree in a pointed and lengthy manner,
but the conciseness of a certain Bill Shakespeare comes to mind: <<The
venom clamors of a jealous woman poison more deadly than a mad dog's
tooth.>> (Women from all over the world, unite and forgive me!)
Did you notice that, in this little sordid KGB-like "dossier", even one's
sheer generosity to share a bit of one's precious time in a music forum
such as this was acrimoniously held against one?
It's good to know that Mr. von Rhein's reserves of fairness and empathy
live every bit up to the gentleman's reputation as a musical critic.
regards,
SG
REG
he can type while he has his head up his ass.
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030630093519...@mb-m23.aol.com...
> >
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
> I'm probably violating all kinds of copyright laws, but here's the
> article:
>
> Henry Fogel: Leaving the CSO in uncertain times
> By John von Rhein
> Tribune music critic
Sheesh. Thanks for the reprint. Is this guy actually blaming Henry for
the fucked-up economy? I guess von Rhein's professorship at the Jayson
Blair School of Post-Ethical Journalism is now assured.
Samir Golescu
Mr. Tepper:
> I guess von Rhein's professorship at the Jayson
> Blair School of Post-Ethical Journalism is now assured.
Good one == I wish I would have thought of that first!
regards,
SG
Richard Schultz
: Did you notice that, in this little sordid KGB-like "dossier", even one's
: sheer generosity to share a bit of one's precious time in a music forum
: such as this was acrimoniously held against one?
Did you notice that instead of getting credit for increasing the endowment
from $19 million to $160 million, he gets criticized for "siphoning off"
$6 million to balance the budget?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in news:bdr2c8$tgo$1...@news.iucc.ac.il:
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.31.030630...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>: Did you notice that, in this little sordid KGB-like "dossier", even
>: one's sheer generosity to share a bit of one's precious time in a music
>: forum such as this was acrimoniously held against one?
>
> Did you notice that instead of getting credit for increasing the
> endowment from $19 million to $160 million, he gets criticized for
> "siphoning off" $6 million to balance the budget?
Why not write exactly that to the Tribute Letters Editor?
David Hurwitz
In 1985, when Fogel arrived here fresh from managerial successes at the
>National Symphony Orchestra, the Chicago Symphony had a popular music
>director. It was recording for several labels. It was heard live (that is,
>live on tape) each week on radio and sometimes on television. It often
>played to sold-out houses. It performed in a hall whose acoustics were of
>sufficient quality to please a majority of orchestra players and audience
>members, and had long been admired by record collectors around the world.
>
>Little or none of that applies today.
>
Precisely; this article is quite simply one of the most obnoxious examples of
argument by hindsight that I have ever seen. It is unfair, selective in its use
of the facts, and illogical in the way that it attempts to connect them. So it's
Henry Fogel's fault that major labels don't record the CSO anymore? It's his
fault that some people don't like the sound of the renovated hall? It's Henry's
fault that Barenboim loves Carter and the "hard line" moderns? The same Henry
whose emphasis on "marketing" and unprecidented "influence" surely should have
been strong enough to prevent such an alarming and uncommercial state of
affairs!
I suppose it's also Henry's fault that Solti died too (you could almost hear the
sigh of relief coming from Decca, particularly as he was considering a Nielsen
cycle when he passed on!). I remember at the time that he hired Barenboim, Henry
told me (and I'm sure he won't mind my mentioning this) that he basically had
two choices: Barenboim or Abbado. Can anyone who remembers his options at the
time seriously challenge the wisdom of his decision? The only thing I know for
sure is that everything that Henry did was motivated by a huge love of
music--obviously a quality the author finds impossible to credit, and as is so
often the case in these instances, such a position says much more about the
author than it does about Henry, or the reality of the situation in Chicago.
Disgusting.
Dave Hurwitz
Ratwood19
He probably is.
>b) how do you know he doesn't really like Bocelli
> and Church?
Either way, he loses.
Roland van Gaalen
news:bdr2c8$tgo$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.31.030630...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> : Did you notice that, in this little sordid KGB-like "dossier", even
one's
> : sheer generosity to share a bit of one's precious time in a music forum
> : such as this was acrimoniously held against one?
>
> Did you notice that instead of getting credit for increasing the endowment
> from $19 million to $160 million, he gets criticized for "siphoning off"
> $6 million to balance the budget?
Very good point.
And I would think that being used as a cushion during an economic downturn
is a primary function of the endowment
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
Norman Schwartz
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:66923188.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
As long as someone continues to pay your salary for what you write, I don't
see that it depressing at all.
Terrymelin
For the past year -- since Mr. Fogel announced his retirement from the CSO --
many have been writing letters to the editor about von Rhein's venom. Not a
single letter has been published.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>from $19 million to $160 million, he gets criticized for "siphoning off"
>$6 million to balance the budget?
>
Of course, why mention that fact when it doesn't fit into your sociopathic
polemic?
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>live every bit up to the gentleman's reputation as a musical critic.
>
>regards,
>SG
Pardon my language but von Rhein is a true asshole. In a recent review of a CSO
concert in which he devoted exactly two sentences to a review of Strauss' Ein
Heldenleben he spent three paragraphs complaining that the CSO gave Mr. Fogel
an award on stage and said that he was at least grateful they used plastic
glasses for the champagne since the CSO had a deficit.
What was that Henry 2nd said about Becket? And von Rhein ain't no Becket.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>told me (and I'm sure he won't mind my mentioning this) that he basically had
>two choices: Barenboim or Abbado.
First, of all, "Henry" didn't have two choices; the Board of Trustees had the
choices. And "Henry" didn't hire Barenbom; the board did.
That's a major problem with this article. It assigns no responsibility for
anything to the rather powerful board of trustees at whose pleasure Mr. Fogel
served. If there is any responsibility to be passed out here it can be spread
around quite a bit.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>argument by hindsight that I have ever seen. It is unfair, selective in its
>use
>of the facts, and illogical in the way that it attempts to connect them.
And the most interesting thing is that when the "renovated" hall first opened 6
years ago von Rhein came close to praising it. In the last year he has changed
his mind.
Who says one can't grow?
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
limelight." This is such a joke. The writer's problem is that NO ONE has ever
sought him out to do any of the things that Mr. Fogel gets "asked" to do. This
is jealously pure and simple.
Of course, he makes the crack and then doesn't present one bit of evidence to
back it of.
Typical of the gutter press represented by von Rhein.
Terry Ellsworth
Ramon Khalona
> I suppose it's also Henry's fault that Solti died too (you could almost hear the
> sigh of relief coming from Decca, particularly as he was considering a Nielsen
> cycle when he passed on!). I remember at the time that he hired Barenboim, Henry
> told me (and I'm sure he won't mind my mentioning this) that he basically had
> two choices: Barenboim or Abbado. Can anyone who remembers his options at the
> time seriously challenge the wisdom of his decision? The only thing I know for
> sure is that everything that Henry did was motivated by a huge love of
> music--obviously a quality the author finds impossible to credit, and as is so
> often the case in these instances, such a position says much more about the
> author than it does about Henry, or the reality of the situation in Chicago.
I think Henry has told the story around here a couple of times: the
orchestra voted in favor of Barenboim and that was that (Solti, IIRC,
had expressed that he would be happy with either of three choices:
Abbado, Barenboim, or Haitink).
So it was not as if Henry "hired" or "selected" Barenboim. It was
part of a process.
I have to be honest and admit that I still think, for strictly musical
reasons, that the orchestra took a step back in hiring Barenboim, but
I also have to say that I disagree with the tone of JvR's article,
much of which is simply not correct.
Ramon Khalona
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in news:20030701081819...@mb-m03.aol.com:
How about writing to the Sun-Times, then?
deac...@yahoo.com
At the rist of treading where angels fear to move, I would, as a
distant observer from the Chicago scene, appreciate a point-by-point
reply to Mr. van Rheim's farewell to Henry Fogel.
It doesn't do much good to anyone to simply label this critic a
pompous ass, or whatever, after the posting of his extraordinarily
detailed article. (for that, many thanks, as I had NO intention of
becoming a "partner" or whatever of the Chicago Tribune)
I have NO idea who hired Barenboim, who spent all the money, why the
exonomy went sour (actually, I DO have an idea, but I am afraid most
posters here tend to support the man responsible, so I shall say
nothing on that score), or why WFMT no longer broadcasts the CSO, why
Orchestra Hall constantly needs remodelling, or whatever.
I DO have some thoughts, and knowledge, of the Decca situation, about
which I will remain silent for the momvent, but until I see someone -
Samir would, perhaps, have the kind of attention to detail and
analytical mind for the job, should he be inclined or have time - take
on Mr. van Rhein in detail and with substance, then his article is
without substantive rebuttal.
Naturally, since Henry Fogel is much beloved of this forum, perhaps
people will feel reluctant to treat into this veritable quagmire.
But I suggest that it is simply not good enough to just throw a little
mud at this piece. It may not deserve better, but if it is to be
disproved, then more is required.
Tom Deacon
Edward Waffle
deac...@yahoo.com wrote in message ...
>
>At the rist of treading where angels fear to move, I would, as a
>distant observer from the Chicago scene, appreciate a point-by-point
>reply to Mr. van Rheim's farewell to Henry Fogel.
<snip>
>But I suggest that it is simply not good enough to just throw a little
>mud at this piece. It may not deserve better, but if it is to be
>disproved, then more is required.
>
No more is required. A point-by-point refutation of van Rheim's screed
would only give it more credence than it deserves. There are texts that
don't need to be disproved--they disprove themselves by their very
existence. Van Rhiem's is one of them.
Smuras
>Date: 7/1/03 7:18 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030701081819...@mb-m03.aol.com>
>
>
>For the past year -- since Mr. Fogel announced his retirement from the CSO --
>many have been writing letters to the editor about von Rhein's venom. Not a
>single letter has been published.
>
>Terry Ellsworth
Actually, I too know that many letters refuting von Rhein have not managed to
get published, I've been lucky to have had two letters countering v R's
nonsense published in the Tribune, and I've fired off another one this time,
though I'll still be surprised if the Tribune publishes it, after all, they let
v R rant as if he's offering some sort of "cutting edge" critique. It pretty
sad that given the quality of music-making going on in this town, that the
critics have generally been so third rate. It would indeed be good for someone
to mention Henry Fogel's success in increasing the orchestra's endowment.
Stanley
Matthew Silverstein
> No more is required. A point-by-point refutation of van Rheim's screed
> would only give it more credence than it deserves. There are texts that
> don't need to be disproved--they disprove themselves by their very
> existence. Van Rhiem's is one of them.
I've never been persuaded by this sort of blanket dismissal. I just read the
article, and while there's much I don't agree with, it does not seem to me
to be as unreasonable as some here are painting it. I, too, would welcome a
more specific refutation.
Matty
Smuras
>Date: 7/1/03 10:12 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <dg83gvga8hpu7rdah...@4ax.com>
I agree that it is unproductive simply "to just throw a little mud," but
neither would I call Mr. von Rhein's writing a real "argument." He makes all
sorts of claims, but without what I'd call real evidence; it only seems like
evidence. von Rhein uses the stuff of negative political campaining--he's a
spin doctor.
But you're right, a point-by-point refutal would be in order, IF the Tribune or
any Chicago paper would print such a letter. They might if it were a lengthy
rebuttal offered by the CSO organization, but I have sent such lengthy
rebuttals in the past, only to have them left unpublished--too long.
von Rhein calls Mr. Fogel, "glib, ambitious, controversial..." He proceeds to
paint this picture, citing Fogel's "side activities," referred to as
"moonlighting." Fogel "spread himself too thin..." etc. von Rhein does what
political writers do, selecting and re-clothing "evidence" to help paint his
demonic picture. It's really demagoguery, and not so easily countered, as we
Yanks know from American politicking.
Nevertheless, you're right. A good rebuttal would help. I suspect someone
from the Orchestral Association or Board will write, but again, as in the
American politics of negative campaining, one will always be "on the
defensive."
Stanley
Samir Golescu
> I DO have some thoughts, and knowledge, of the Decca situation, about
> which I will remain silent for the momvent, but until I see someone -
> Samir would, perhaps, have the kind of attention to detail and
> analytical mind for the job, should he be inclined or have time - take
> on Mr. van Rhein in detail and with substance, then his article is
> without substantive rebuttal.
Mr Deacon, thanks for the invitation but I have two things to point out:
first of all, both David Hurwitz (not my best friend, mind you, but a good
analytical mind), Terry, Richard Schultz and, last and least, "moi" have
demolished at least four precise points of the article; secondly, I am
quite not the one having the most data in the matter. . . Henry Fogel is
too much of a gentlemen to respond this as it deserves, so unless Terry is
willing to say more. . . Regardless of whether he would or not, I resent
nevertheless, personally, the article's strong flavor of Henry Fogel
needing to stand judgment like a common criminal, rather than as a
nation-wide respected manager who did *factually* much good for his
orchestra, good which goes either unmentioned or blurred in judgmental
speculation in Chicago Tribune's witchhunt-like indictment.
regards,
SG
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I agree, Samir, that the article is fairly blithe in the way it slings
its arrows.
And it is obvious that Mr. Fogel and Mr. van Rhein do not see eye to
eye, to put it mildly.
Van Rhein has the advantage of his bully pulpit, the Chicago Tribune.
And he will ALWAYS have the last word, of course.
But if you see my meaning, as an outsider, not knowing the facts, and
just reading these posts, one after the other, and mostly lobbing
insults at Van Rhein, I come away from it all as though I have just
witnessed a bout of mud-wrestling.
There HAS to be more to this than personal venom on Van Rhein's part
and it is that "more" that I think needs exposure before any outside
observer can make a reasonable judgment.
I remember a critic of the Toronto Star referring to Jon Vickers as a
"short, fat, balding tenor". That critic, who still writes for The
Star, incidentally, clearly overstepped the mark. It had absolutely
nothing to do with Mr. Vickers as a singer. That kind of criticism is
easily dismissed. Van Rhein's is more insidious, as you suggest, in
that it uses subterfuge to attain its goal. But it must be properly
countered. Unlike William Littler's famous put-down of Vickers.
Tom Deacon
Edward Waffle
Smuras wrote in message <20030701120525...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
>Nevertheless, you're right. A good rebuttal would help. I suspect someone
>from the Orchestral Association or Board will write, but again, as in the
>American politics of negative campaining, one will always be "on the
>defensive."
>
Others less learned (like me) might phrase the question: "Do you still beat
your wife?"
Simply answering the question puts one on the ground upon which his
antagonist chooses to fight.
As Smuras mentions, it is typical of negative campaigning--which has
existed, of course, for a long time--perhaps as long as political campaigns
have been run.
David Hurwitz
says...
That was my point. Of course he didn't make these decisions alone, in a vaccuum.
Dave
Smuras
for point (be warned! it's tedious, so skip if if you really want a true
rebuttal), but to try to pick apart his writing a bit, and show why I think his
piece isn't really fair or helpful commentary, and ultimately why it almost
isn't worthy of careful refutation (for it's not really an argument, or
critique, it's political spin). This is a long post, so bear with me, if
you're interested. Here goes:
Hard times for orchestras (von Rhein's headings):
Von Rhein begins by creating a bleak picture, comparing the CSO situation in
1985 with today's: in 1985 we had a popular music director (Solti), recording
contracts with several labels, radio broadcasts, some sold-out houses, and
acoustics of sufficient quality (I'm frankly of the "I think they're better
camp"). Now, none of this applies and von Rhein blames Fogel.
Von Rhein knows that the bleak picture of the orchestra (if indeed it really is
quite that bleak) is one shared by many orchestras and art institutions, and
that he can only succeed in laying the blame at Fogel's feet if he can paint a
picture of someone not attentive to his job. Von Rhein acknowledges, as he
must, the general problem in the economy. (By the way, I work for the School
of the Art Inst. of Chicago, and we too have seen a dramatic drop in individual
and corporate donations.) So how does von Rhein make his case? First, he
must establish that Fogel wields all or most of the decision-making power at
the CSO, which is what he does in the opening of his article: "The Chicago
Symphony's glib, ambitious, controversial, high-profile chief executive defined
the scope of his job, for better or worse, far more broadly than any manager in
the history of the orchestra. If not the best orchestra boss in the business,
he made himself the most powerful, by virtue of his mighty forum here and the
high visibility he cultivated as roving Mister Fixit for members of the
American Symphony Orchestra League. An administrator with a genuinely broad
knowledge and love of music, Fogel was directly involved in CSO programming,
policy-making and choosing guest artists. He was the orchestra's chief
spokesman and one of the city's most prominent arts administrators." So Fogel
was the man really in charge, but von Rhein is too clever to say this directly.
A good spin doctor has to leave a modicum of ambiguity to defend his position.
From here on, von Rhein can then lay out his "case" or claims. Why was Fogel
then neglectful of his duties? Well, Fogel was "moonlighting," after the
"limelight," and this leads him to neglect the orchestra's budgetary and
artistic future. So here's the premise: Fogel--all powerful and ambitious,
self-serving; no wonder things were neglected! So was Fogel in charge to this
extent? I certainly can't answer this, but it seems to me that a good
journalist would investigate, and do so not by simply asking a handful of
musicians (as von Rhein often does for his intelligence). He should have
consulted with the board, with Barenboim, officers of the administration, etc.
Has he done this? Has he researched the nature of possible connections between
decisions made and budgetary consequences? Of course not. And what really is
the evidence that Fogel is selfishly ambitious (which is at least implied
here)? There isn't any real evidence, only spin. The same phenomena can
instead paint a picture of a dedicated and energetic cultural leader. von
Rhein isn't interested in complexity or nuance, and certainly not fairness.
He's not really interested in honest reporting.
Bailing before the deluge?
Now if this isn't sheer innuendo... This is the stuff of American political
campaigning. Why is so and so resigning? Well, she says she wants to spend
more time with family, but no one really believes this. Von Rhein paints a
frightening situation looming in upcoming contract negotiations. VR: "It must
pain an administrator as 'musician-sensitive' (his words) as Fogel to see how
distrustful of management the CSO players apparently have become under his
watch." Where are the facts here? And are the upcoming negotiations a cause
for Fogel to flee? First of all, a key word here is "apparently." Like the
campaign writer he is, von Rhein throws in a qualifier that he knows most of
his readers will miss, "apparently." So are labor relations as tense as von
Rhein suggests? Well, "apparently" so. But where's the evidence? There is
none. VR has had a handful of unnamed musicians whom he cites on occasion to
bolster his claims, but no more than a handful at best, out of 120 or so. But
we'll believe VR if we been convinced that Fogel is really only after the
"limelight," and wants to bail for reasons of ambition.
Next, von Rhein slips in the loss of recording and broadcast contracts, but
here he no longer needs to blame Fogel directly, because, if he's done his job,
we are already convinced that Fogel was really a self-serving ambitious
power-broker who's decisions are solely to blame. Here, von Rhein doesn't even
need to raise the matter of the economy again, he's already dispensed with that
as a factor.
Barenboim brought aboard
This is a tired old horse that VR doesn't want to die, but if we follow the
premise, then of course, Fogel is fully responsible for bringing Barenboim
here, but VR leaves out the musicians' role in this process, and the
complexity such a decision actually entailed. Von Rhein has always made an
issue of Barenboim's conducting, and here we're on more subjective ground.
Barenboim has a distinct musical personality, and divides many listeners, but
from what I've seen in the hall, whatever one thinks, he's certainly won a
large and loyal following here. And frankly, IMHO, the orchestra sounds better
than it did under Solti, especially in the late '80s. I find that Barenboim
consistently gets what he wants out of the orchestra, whether that's to one's
taste or not. Von Rhein generally follows some sort of critical "received
wisdom" regarding Barenboim: brilliant pianist, but weak conductor; and you can
read this in VR's reviews. You can predict that he'll praise a Barenboim
recital, sometimes extremely highly, but he'll more often pan an orchestral
performance, unless it's Wagner or Bruckner. When he praises a Barenboim
orchestral performance, it's often begrudgingly, with a few catty remarks
thrown in for good measure. Anyway, it's still spin. Things sound good, if
you like Barenboim, or things sound terrible, if you don't. So can we
attribute flat ticket sales (though from what I've seen, Barenboim consistently
draws a larger crowd than not) to Barenboim, Elliot Carter, and finally, to
Fogel? Von Rhein can offer no evidence, and he ignores the importance of
larger contexts (again, who needs complexity?). Von Rhein leaves this most
subjective and presumptive part of his argument for the latter part of his
piece. Why? Well, because he first has to more thoroughly convince by firming
up his negative picture of Fogel, otherwise the guilt by implication won't have
real force or power.
Anyway, enough. Sorry for the long tedious post, but I really think von
Rhein's writing belongs to the genre of cheap journalistic character
assassination. He's learned a great deal from contemporary American politics.
Stanley
David Hurwitz
>There HAS to be more to this than personal venom on Van Rhein's part
>and it is that "more" that I think needs exposure before any outside
>observer can make a reasonable judgment.
>
Hi Tom! I hope that you are doing well.
A couple of points:
1. There doesn't have to be more than venom at work. You've been in this
business for a long time, you should know.
2. Nor do we have to insist that Henry didn't make the occasional mistake, or
that all of his decisions were good ones. No one is perfect, but that's not
really the point.
3. The point, then, is whether or not Van Rhien is writing with basic good will
and objectivity, or with an axe to grind. To me the answer is obvious. Leaving
aside, for the moment, the individual facts he raises and the slant that he
gives them, his thesis, to which all of his evidence leads is this:
Henry Fogel is "abandoning" Chicago in hard times due to problems which he to a
large extent personally created.
That this perception is not generally shared in the industry or in Chicago is a
fact to be taken for granted by anyone even tangentially "in the know", even as
must be the possibility that after 18 years in the chair the honeymoon was over,
Henry has his share of detractors, and it was time to go. All of which,
incidentally, only argues in favor of his decision to move on, and in no way
denigrates his acheivements.
Van Rhein's lack of goodwill is evident in any number of points, but two will
do. He acknowledges the necessity of upgrading the hall, but it's Henry's fault
that the upgrade has not been univerally praised. Similarly, he derides both
Barenboim's taste for mondern music and Henry's efforts to encourage performance
of lesser known tonal works. I mean, is Van Rhein's personal dislike of George
Lloyd really relevant to an evaluation of Henry's career at the CSO? And you see
that no matter what Henry does, it doesn't matter--he's damned if does and
damned if he doesn't.
In short, I find nothing in this article that is 'news', nothing scandalous or
even mildly interesting, because if we strip away the editorializing and
snideness, all that is left is the obvious point that some of Henry's decisions
may have been better than others, that the orchestra ran a deficit (nothing new
there, for sure) after years and years of balanced budgets under Henry's
leadership, and that Henry may not have magically solved all of the problems
relating to attracting larger audiences, educational outreach, or dealing with
the delicate question of the orchestra's place in the larger Chicago community.
So what else is new? Against these jejune observations, Henry's record in
Chicago speaks for itself. And so, alas, does Van Rhein's. To dignify his attack
by even attempting to respond would be both pointless and to give him more
attention than he deserves.
Dave Hurwitz
Mark Stenroos
> By John von Rhein
Rhein was the idiot-in-charge for the Akron (OH) Beacon Journal when I
was in music school at Kent State. His ridiculous reviews and
frequent faux pas on matters musical were the source of many a hearty
guffaw in the corridors and classrooms of the school. We were all
shocked when he was hired in Chicago.
I particularly like this typical Rhein idiocy from the article in
question:
"Salary raises built into the CSO's four-year contract will push the
players'
base salary up to $104,000 next season, which will mark the final year
of
the labor agreement. Multiply that figure by 110 musicians, add
sizable
overscale payments to many of the players and you understand why the
orchestra expects to close fiscal 2004 with a deficit of $4 million to
$5
million. Deborah Card, Fogel's successor, will need all the business
savvy
at her command to stanch the hemorrhaging red ink."
The implication from Rhein is that the musicians are overpaid, and
that the musicians' salaries are the reason the orchestra will post a
deficit. Yet if you do the math, you discover that these salaries add
up to just under $12-million of the CSO's $60-million yearly
operating budget, ie: roughly 20-percent of the orchestra's expenses.
What would Rhein have the players do, take a 50-percent pay cut to
eliminate the deficit? Does he think that the concertmaster of the CSO
is only worth $60k a year? What an ass!
And who, exactly, makes up those 110 players? Well, they're all
members of a very exclusive club reserved for the very best players in
the world! Maybe less than 1-percent of musicians in the world play at
the level of the CSO players. Would Rhein begrudge them a base salary
that, quite frankly, is not exactly top flight in today's globally
considered professional world? Would Rhein have a difficult time
finding, say, 110 AVERAGE doctors or lawyers in Chicago who make at
least $104k a year for doing little more than pushing pills and
chasing ambulances? What does the top neuro surgeon in Chicago make a
year (ie: a professional at the top of his respective heap, just like
the CSO players are at the top of their heap)? I doubt if it's a
measly $104k.
I wonder what Barenboim is paid each year. One million? Two million?
(And he doesn't even conduct every concert) For that matter, what is
Rhein paid each year for penning his drivel for the Tribune?
It's simple - without the players, you don't have an orchestra. If
they're worth it, they're worth it. There are plenty of other places
to cut costs and save money - like administrative staff. Or does Rhein
believe that the Assistant to the Marketing Director is ready to step
in and play the fiddle solos in Ein Heldenleben after he cuts loose
the CSO concertmaster for being overpaid?
What a moron.
Terrymelin
Good idea!
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>
>Dave
Of course, I was quoting you and that's what you said exactly. Sorry.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>mud at this piece. It may not deserve better, but if it is to be
>disproved, then more is required.
>
>Tom Deacon
>
I sympathize with your comments, however, for those of us of who live in
Chicago and who have lived with this situation for years we no longer have the
energy to go into all the detail.
Von Rhein is an asshole; the evidence has existed for many, many years and many
examples have been given here.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>article, and while there's much I don't agree with, it does not seem to me
>to be as unreasonable as some here are painting it. I, too, would welcome a
>more specific refutation.
Then you should read some of the other comments made here and over the years
about von Rhein.
I've given many examples. You can choose to recognize that or not. It is your
choice.
But I submit that a man who writes an article in which he castigates Mr. Fogel
for "lusting for the limelight" and then giving no evidence is proof enough
that the writer is an ass.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>or
>any Chicago paper would print such a letter. They might if it were a lengthy
>rebuttal offered by the CSO organization, but I have sent such lengthy
>rebuttals in the past, only to have
I know that I and many others have been doing this for the past year but as
I've said they have refused to print those letters.
And there would be no point in the CSO organization writing to the Tribune --
all it would get is more bad press from the critic who isn't going anywhere and
who will use his poison pen to make the situation worse.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>too much of a gentlemen to respond this as it deserves, so unless Terry is
>willing to say more. . . Regardless of whether he would or not, I resent
>nevertheless, personally, the article's strong flavor of Henry Fogel
>needing to stand judgment like a common criminal, rather than as a
>nation-wide respected manager who did *factually* much good for his
>orchestra, good which goes either unmentioned or blurred in judgmental
>speculation in Chicago Tribune's witchhunt-like indictment.
>
>regards,
>SG
>
This has been going on since Mr. Fogel announced his retirement last summer.
Von Rhein has not missed an opportunity to blame every single problem or
perceived problem of the CSO on the back of Mr. Fogel. This is well-documented
in the Chicago Tribune's archives.
Most of it has been extremely petty as I pointed out most recently was the
review of the Heldenleben in which he aired his resentment that Henry was being
"flogged" all over town on the occasion of his retirement and he is only
"management" not the "music director." He then went on to complain that with a
budget deficit it is all too much and at least they used "plastic glasses" for
the champagne.
I submit that that is all that one needs to say about von Rhein, his motives,
and his pathology.
He is a petty, jealous little man -- and as someone who often occupies the
Orchestra Hall seat directly behind him at concerts I can tell you from his
catty comments he walks into that place with his mind made up long before the
orchestra takes the downbeat.
He wishes he was as respected as Mr. Fogel. He wishes he could have a radio
show and be asked for help by arts organizations all over the country. But he
isn't and he doesn't. For this, he has decided to carry on a personal vendetta
against Henry which culminated in this article last Sunday. An article, I might
add, which has been the subject of conversation among the CSO family -- donors,
patrons, etc. -- for more than a year. Because we all knew it would be written
this way -- it was so predictable.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>eye, to put it mildly
Where in this article do you get the impression that this has anything to do
with Mr. Fogel's attitude -- he wasn't interviewed for the article. Mr. von
Rhein has a problem with Mr. Fogel. There is no evidence that Mr. Fogel has a
problem with Mr. von Rhein.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
> Similarly, he derides both
>Barenboim's taste for mondern music and Henry's efforts to encourage
>performance
>of lesser known tonal works
David is right but what is even more amazing is von Rhein's need to have it
both ways. He points out in this article his disdain for Barenboim's taste in
modern music but in the very first review in the Tribune of a CSO concert this
past January he complained that all the other big orchestras were playing
modern music while the CSO played old Romantic "warhorses."
Let's just say that consistency of argument again Von Rhein's strong suit.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>Chicago speaks for itself. And so, alas, does Van Rhein's. To dignify his
>attack
>by even attempting to respond would be both pointless and to give him more
>attention than he deserves.
>
>Dave Hurwitz
>
All true. But what I think would have been nice would have been a true
evaluation of Mr. Fogel's tenure as Executive Director and then President of
the Chicago Symphony Orchestra rather than a rant of half-baked accusations and
venom. That is the unfortunate part.
Terry Ellsworth
Alain Dagher
>
> even one's
> sheer generosity to share a bit of one's precious time in a music forum
> such as this was acrimoniously held against one?
>
I know - pretty frightening!
ad
Terrymelin
>they're worth it, they're worth it. There are plenty of other places
>to cut costs and save money - like administrative staff. Or does Rhein
>believe that the Assistant to the Marketing Director is ready to step
>in and play the fiddle solos in Ein Heldenleben after he cuts loose
>the CSO concertmaster for being
I hate to tell you this but the CSO management and staff has been cut to the
bone and there have been cuts in every single program, etc. and there is still
a deficit. There is only one area of the CSO that hasn't taken a hit yet -- and
that is the players salaries and benefits.
It seems only reasonable to me that in hard economic times when everyone is
willing to cut and cut and cut that the orchestra players have an obligation to
be part of the team by accepting some cuts as well.
I found the most disturbing factual thing in the article the fact that the
musicians were offered the highest radio fee paid to any orchestra in this
country -- the NYP -- and they refused. That decision keeps the CSO off the
air.
And that is a tragedy.
Terry Ellsworth
deac...@yahoo.com
I appreciate your feelings, Terry. You may be quite right. But an
asshole can still be right despite his being an asshole. Many assholes
are that BECAUSE they are always right.
Sorry. Cannot resist it. But surely Dubya suffers from this fault!
But I digress.
David Hurwitz makes some very good points. So does Stanley. Although I
must say that Stanley doesn't seem to KNOW that Rhein has talked to
only a few musicians. He just guesses.Von Rhein's opinions on
Barenboim as a conductor or a pianist more or less follow received
wisdom on this subject. This is not really spin; just opinion.Critics
follow the crowd in their opinions more often than not.
It is an obvious point that Von Rhein is "out to get" Henry Fogel. But
that is sort of what critics in Chicago do for sport. Claudio "got" a
few in her day. RCM was, perhaps, a bit more toothless, but here we
have Mr. Von Rhein doing the Chicago critic's dance.
The question is: Has he made any points worth taking seriously, or are
we just to throw some mud at the article and dismiss it out of hand?
As someone who admires Alfred Brendel I have not been blind to the
"get Brendel" crowd who seem to have been led by Harold C Schoenberg.
That crowd is still fairly vocal here and elsewhere, but their
feelings are most eloquently summed up in Schoenberg's various
dismissals. In favour of Jorge Bolet playing Godowsky, or Horowitz
playing Moszkowski. Or whoever.
Some of us have fought back tooth and nail, matching Mr. Schoenberg
point for point. Cannot really tell who's winning. maybe nobody. But
Brendel still packs them in at Carnegie Hall and elsewhere around the
world, despite HCS and his predilection for Russian-trained,
velvet-toned note spinners. So maybe Brendel will have the last laugh.
The thing is to fight back, if you believe strongly that an injustice
has been perpetrated. And not just stand there and blather about
"spin" and "assholes" and such like. Those comments really carry no
weight at all.
Tom Deacon
Alan Watkins
> I suppose it's also Henry's fault that Solti died too (you could almost hear the
> sigh of relief coming from Decca, particularly as he was considering a Nielsen
> cycle when he passed on!).
The sigh of relief upon Solti's passing was not entirely confined to
Decca. When news of his death reached London, a group of orchestral
players, including several principal players in the London Symphony
Orchestra (some of whom refused to play for Solti and left the task to
their "co-principal") organised an impromptu party. I understand it
was well attended.
Of course, such a thing is in very bad taste but I'm afraid it
happened. I only know two LSO principals (one current, one retired)
but their stories of Solti's bullying and shouting did not make
pleasant listening and I honestly see no place for it in music-making.
Very few orchestral musicians TRY to get it wrong.
Of course I would say this but such "best" performances as I have done
have been, so far as I remember, with conductors who did not bully or
shout. Of course they are entitled to get cross or "sharp" (and many
do) but there's a hell of a difference between bullying and shouting
and being persistent and "in charge". For all I know, this possibly
applies in the general workplace and, if so, I believe is now
categorised as "man management".
The very fact that section leaders avoided playing for him whenever
they could (in England, anyway) is probably significant.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Smuras
Yes, you're quite right, I don't really know how many musicians of the CSO von
Rhein has spoken with; I admit it was something I inferred from some of von
Rhein's own commentaries in the past where he himself identifies a number of
them as being "some." But I'll cede the point here.
I do still feel that von Rhein's goes beyond opinion to spin; and I agree that
we often will spin our opinions in the hopes that opinion will be taken for
fact, but I think VR well pushes into the kind of rhetoric, absent of
circumspection, used by commercial ads and politicians. It's one thing to do
this informally, or here in a newsgroup, and it's another to do so in the
press.
In my letter to the Tribune, I wrote that it was appropriate to assess Mr.
Fogel's tenure with the CSO, both the good and the bad, in a thoughtful and
balanced commentary. This is not at all what we got, and I think that von
Rhein's claims are indeed not really worthy of response, but he's published it;
it's out there; and so yes, we should respond. I've sent a letter already, and
I would have written a long one, but I kept it short and general, hoping it
would be published.
Stanley
David Hurwitz
says...
No, this is what Van Rhein was saying, and that is what I was responding to.
Context, my dear boy, context! Interesting how you can be taking one author to
task for a failure of good will, common sense, and courtesy while trying to
score a couple of cheap points in exactly the same fashion.
Dave Hurwitz
Alan Watkins
a backward country (Czech Republic, formerly Czechoslovakia) but my
experience has been that people who organise concerts don't actually
have to play the notes.
There is no doubt that "organising" concerts is a great skill but
whether it is a greater skill than playing the notes in the concert
that they have "organised" I would not wish to say.
If you think musicians are overpaid, or should take a cut, I could
suggest an experiment.
Let the musicians do the administrative work and let the
administrators play the concert. I have no idea what the outcome
would be but I definitely think it might be worth a try.
Terrymelin
This is truly silly and doesn't address any of the issues.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>asshole can still be right despite his being an asshole. Many assholes
>are that BECAUSE they are always right.
>
>Sorry. Cannot resist it. But surely Dubya suffers from this fault!
>
>But I digress.
>
Must every discussion here degenerate into political feelings that have no
relevance to the subject?
C'mon.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>Decca. When news of his death reached London, a group of orchestral
>players, including several principal players in the London Symphony
>Orchestra (some of whom refused to play for Solti and left the task to
>their "co-principal") organised an impromptu party. I understand it
>was well attended.
>
If true, that is absolutely one of the most disgusting things that I have ever
heard. Shame on those people.
Terry Ellsworth
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in
news:62c8649c.03070...@posting.google.com:
>> I suppose it's also Henry's fault that Solti died too (you could almost
>> hear the sigh of relief coming from Decca, particularly as he was
>> considering a Nielsen cycle when he passed on!).
>
> The sigh of relief upon Solti's passing was not entirely confined to
> Decca. When news of his death reached London, a group of orchestral
> players, including several principal players in the London Symphony
> Orchestra (some of whom refused to play for Solti and left the task to
> their "co-principal") organised an impromptu party. I understand it
> was well attended.
It should be remarked that upon Solti's death, Decca duly placed memorial
adverts in all the smart journals. Their Website, however, told another
story entirely. They refused to acknowledge it *at all*, even after many
members on the discussion page demanded it. They seemingly closed down
that page rather than give in.
The first mention on Decca's Website of his passing came *fifteen months*
after the event. Considering what a cash cow he had been for them, this
seems positively spiteful.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Mark Coy tossed off eBay? http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2B734C02
RMCR's most pointless, dumb and laughable chowderhead: Mark Coy.
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in news:20030701184319...@mb-m20.aol.com:
I agree (and I've said elsewhere, his label refused even to acknowledge his
death on their Website for fifteen months). This isn't the only time this
has happened. I once overheard two San Francisco Symphony musicians
discussing, around 1973-4, the illness of their former music director,
Josef Krips. "We ought to send him a 'get sicker' card," one of them said.
REG
information, but won't say it "just now", lots of suggestions that it's up
to others to refute clearly irresponsible allegations which fly in the face
of common sense and the barest notions of the economy over the past decade.
What a pompous ass you are. Were you that way before you were unemployed?
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dg83gvga8hpu7rdah...@4ax.com...
>
> At the rist of treading where angels fear to move, I would, as a
> distant observer from the Chicago scene, appreciate a point-by-point
> reply to Mr. van Rheim's farewell to Henry Fogel.
>
> It doesn't do much good to anyone to simply label this critic a
> pompous ass, or whatever, after the posting of his extraordinarily
> detailed article. (for that, many thanks, as I had NO intention of
> becoming a "partner" or whatever of the Chicago Tribune)
>
> I have NO idea who hired Barenboim, who spent all the money, why the
> exonomy went sour (actually, I DO have an idea, but I am afraid most
> posters here tend to support the man responsible, so I shall say
> nothing on that score), or why WFMT no longer broadcasts the CSO, why
> Orchestra Hall constantly needs remodelling, or whatever.
>
> I DO have some thoughts, and knowledge, of the Decca situation, about
> which I will remain silent for the momvent, but until I see someone -
> Samir would, perhaps, have the kind of attention to detail and
> analytical mind for the job, should he be inclined or have time - take
> on Mr. van Rhein in detail and with substance, then his article is
> without substantive rebuttal.
>
> Naturally, since Henry Fogel is much beloved of this forum, perhaps
> people will feel reluctant to treat into this veritable quagmire.
Matthew Silverstein
> The first mention on Decca's Website of his passing came *fifteen months*
> after the event. Considering what a cash cow he had been for them, this
> seems positively spiteful.
Still flogging away at that horse?
Matty
deac...@yahoo.com
>This is just another Deacon screed. Lots of suggestions that he knows inside
>information, but won't say it "just now", lots of suggestions that it's up
>to others to refute clearly irresponsible allegations which fly in the face
>of common sense and the barest notions of the economy over the past decade.
>
>What a pompous ass you are. Were you that way before you were unemployed?
Well now, how nice to meet you Reg! Are you always this charming? If
so, where did you learn it? DK must have given you private
instruction. You went right to the head of the class.
However, to answer your remarks, the "information" I have regarding
Solti and Decca is not particularly relevant to Mr. Von Rheim's
article. So, perhaps later.
As for my "suggestions", they were not really that. Just queries. If
you cannot stand questions, I doubt you will have much patience for
answers.
Perhaps you got your answers before the questions were even asked.
Typical of some people who operate on a constant diet of "idees
fixes". I have noticed a certain number of those in this forum.
Have a nice day!
Tom Deacon
Roland van Gaalen
wrote in message news:Xns93ABC11C44...@129.250.170.99...
> terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:20030701184319...@mb-m20.aol.com:
>
> >> The sigh of relief upon Solti's passing was not entirely confined to
> >> Decca. When news of his death reached London, a group of orchestral
> >> players, including several principal players in the London Symphony
> >> Orchestra (some of whom refused to play for Solti and left the task to
> >> their "co-principal") organised an impromptu party. I understand it
> >> was well attended.
> >>
> >
> > If true, that is absolutely one of the most disgusting things that I
> > have ever heard. Shame on those people.
>
> I agree (and I've said elsewhere, his label refused even to acknowledge
his
> death on their Website for fifteen months). This isn't the only time this
> has happened. I once overheard two San Francisco Symphony musicians
> discussing, around 1973-4, the illness of their former music director,
> Josef Krips. "We ought to send him a 'get sicker' card," one of them
said.
That's terrible!
It _almost_ reminded me of a very distasteful song by the Smiths, "Margaret
on the guillotine"
("*When* wil you die? Please *die*!")
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
the following letters to be typed in
I assume you mean the hard-haired former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher
(now Baroness Thatcher), rather than the curly-haired pianist, Margaret
Fingerhut (now Mrs. M. Tepper)(well, I can dream, can't I?).
Alan Watkins
If you cut the rates of pay that you give to the "top one per cent in
the world" you will probably end up with musicians who are not in the
"top one per cent in the world" and I believe it completely addresses
the issue. How many people does the CSO have in the "press office" I
wonder and what good does it do them. The only "press office" I know
is the playing on the night not what some penpusher tries to tell a
newspaper how it WILL be like.
The issue (in America) is simple. You need state subsidy....virtually
EVERY national orchestra in the world has this, bar America. You
don't think orchestras are worth subsidising......you don't think the
country/state should promote them as a state, national and world
treasure and you don't believe that as in other parts of the world
they speak for YOUR culture, heritage, history. In short, you don't
care.
America believes, so far as I know, that if they don't balance the
books they simply go for Chapter 11. Curiously enough, this is not a
view held about either the Berlin or Vienna Philharmonic who get
many-million subsidies from their respective governments as do all
orchestras in the Czech Republic and in many other places in the
world. In the Czech Republic they are even stupid enough to believe
that artistic heritage (whether opera or marionettes) attracts
TOURISTS (many of them American like right know who spend MILLIONS of
dollars in Prague mostly buying ice creams on the street at twice the
price of the cafes).
You build wonderful halls like Dallas, which I had the good fortune to
play in once, but you do absolutely bugger all about subsidising
either the Dallas Orchestra or anywhere else.
You charge extortionate prices for orchestral concerts, operas and
ballets and thereby guarantee that only the rich turn up for
them.....to do otherwise regards a state or national subsidy but
without it you guarantee that only the rich enter this "secret
world"....it never broadens. And that, possibly, is exactly where your
problem is: you never expand your market.
Prague does not harbour the "top one per cent of orchestral musicians"
but try coming this month or next and join the queue of Americans
desperately trying to get a best of house seat at $25 at the National
Theatre.....$40 if you are stupid enough to book through an agency.
We do not get $104,000 a month....a principal closer to $40,000 but it
is of course relevant to the local economy but despite that the
Americans queuing outside the theatre won't get a seat for $25 or less
without a massive government subsidy.
If you believe great orchestras are part of your culture, history,
heritage you can either subsidise them or simply let them go to the
wall. Or ask the people representing your culture, history, heritage
to take a pay cut.
On the night, so far as I know, it ain't the administrators who make
the audience go "wow". When the administrators get fired they simply
go off to another "administrative" job. That is not the case with
musicians.
David Hurwitz
>The issue (in America) is simple. You need state subsidy....virtually
>EVERY national orchestra in the world has this, bar America. You
>don't think orchestras are worth subsidising......you don't think the
>country/state should promote them as a state, national and world
>treasure and you don't believe that as in other parts of the world
>they speak for YOUR culture, heritage, history. In short, you don't
>care.
Alan, ordinarily I respect you, but the above and what followed is absolutely on
of the stupidest and most ignorant things I have ever seen, and it betrays not a
shred of understanding of the reality of the situation of orchestras in the
United States. The FACT of the matter is that the US supports, without major
subsidy, some of the greatest orchestras in the world, and has done so for as
long as orchestras have existed in their present form. The question of whether
or not such institutions represent "cultural treasures" worthy of taxpayer
support is very much a matter of opinion, and says absolutely nothing about the
culture or commitment of the PEOPLE of the country in question. Indeed, I would
argue that government subsidy actually denigrates the taste of the public by
preaching culture from on high, and by disenfranchizing the people by robbing
them of the right to NOT pay for entertainment that does not interest them.
"Culture" supported by automatic subsidy irrespective of public interest or
dedication to the cause is, for me, a meaningless display of decadence.
But beyong these purely subjective considerations, if it were an all or nothing
proposition--a question of having or not having access to a good orchestra for
the vast majority of people who want to see one--I could see the question of
subsidy becoming an issue here. But in reality the American Symphony Orchestra
League numbers, at last count, I believe some 1,100 members (or 22 professional
orchestras per state on average), at least 400 of which have budgets in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (in other words, they put on
reasonably full seasons), while at least a dozen or more are world class on any
given day. In this environment there are bound to be failures from time to time,
but the the tradition of great symphony orchestras in the US stretches back
further than in any other country in the world except Germany. When an orchestra
fails here in the USA, the problem usually stems from an inability to convince
the community of the value of its existence (or from simple
over-reaching--growing to ambitiously too soon), and quite frankly I do not
believe that every community needs an orchestra, and any orchestra that can't so
convince its community of its value richly deserves oblivion.
I happen to have colleagues in Berlin, and they describe to me a city which is
fiscally bankrupt and which is in the midst of a perpetual battle among its art
institutions for subsidy money, which organizations devour millions of Euros
annually and are accountable to no one, in furtherance of what by any measure
and general agreement is simply a glut of entertainment unsupported by public
interest or attendance. The same is true of the London orchestras, where as any
number of major British artists have been saying for decades that an excess of
subsidy keeps going several fair to good orchestras rather than one or two
superb ones. I might also point out that the US, which does not subsidize its
orchestras, still manages to pay its players top dollar (certainly compared to
the Czech Republic where the Czech Philharmonic finds it nearly impossible to
keep players owing to the low salaries, and the same is true, I might add, of
the Concertgebouw and several other orchestras I could name). Dallas, one of
your examples, has its new hall and is well on the way to completing funding of
a $200 million endowment program. San Diego was reborn after an ignominious
failure by a single gift of similar size.
Beneath the European model I detect an undercurrent of insecurity: if these
institutions cannot support themselves without subsidy, what purpose do they
serve other than the purely ornamental, Nationalistic, or as symbolic relics of
past glory? And (you heard it here first) the European model shows every sign of
decay leading to possible collapse. The perpectual funding crises in Germany,
the UK (remember Covent Garden and the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, to
mention only two ongoing financial crises?), Holland, and elsewhere are going to
run up against the pending economic disaster produced by excessive government
commitment to pensions and "the welfare state," and the next few years are going
to be very, very interesting indeed when it comes to tax priorities, and the
arts in particular. So I wouldn't be too quick to generalize with respect to one
system's supriority over another, if I were you.
On the subject of salaries, and as an orchestral player myself, I am fully in
agreement with you that players should be paid as much as they can get, wherever
they are. I think the salaries paid "name" conductors and soloists today are
ludicrous, and that the money would be better spent on securing the finest
players. But to say that many, or even more than a very few, back-office
organizations in the US consist of a bunch of highly paid fat-cats making out at
the player's expense is just plain ignorant. I work with dozens performing arts
organizations on a regular basis, and the PR and press offices that I have
encountered contain many of the most hard working, dedicated, caring,
professionally competent people that I know. The existence of these larger
organizations is necessitated by the need to engage in public outreach, attract
subcribers and supporters, get the community involved, and generally make the
case for classical music to people who have many other things to do with their
time and money--and that strikes me as a wholly positive and healthy endeavor.
Certainly, one can view the cup as "half full" or "half empty," but as far as I
am concerned, the ability of US orchestras to exist as long as they have, as
numerous as they are, and at the level of quality that they maintain, is a
triumphant vindication of the American "system".
David Hurwitz
Samir Golescu
On 2 Jul 2003, David Hurwitz wrote:
> >The issue (in America) is simple. You need state subsidy....virtually
> >EVERY national orchestra in the world has this, bar America. You
> >don't think orchestras are worth subsidising......you don't think the
> >country/state should promote them as a state, national and world
> >treasure and you don't believe that as in other parts of the world
> >they speak for YOUR culture, heritage, history. In short, you don't
> >care.
> Etc.
>
> Alan, ordinarily I respect you, but the above and what followed is
> absolutely on of the stupidest and most ignorant things I have ever seen
Mr. Watkins, dear Mr Hurwitz must mean that you may be somewhat
"slightly misinformed" but he likes to milk all the kindness euphemisms
can muster. . . once you'll get that you'll start loving him, as we all
eventually (had to) do. . . ( :
> . . .and it betrays not a shred of understanding of the reality of the
> situation of orchestras in the United States.
[bulk of reasonable opinion snipped]
> Beneath the European model I detect an undercurrent of insecurity: if
> these institutions cannot support themselves without subsidy, what
> purpose do they serve other than the purely ornamental, Nationalistic,
> or as symbolic relics of past glory?
Sir Humphrey: "Bernard, do you want the lake district turned into a
gigantic caravan site, the Royal Opera House into a bingo hall, the
National Theatre into a carpet sale warehouse?!?"
[Bernard]: "Well, it looks like one actually."
Sir Humphrey, cuttingly: "We gave the architect a knighthood so that
*nobody* would ever say that!"
<<British democracy recognises that you need a system to protect the
important things of life, and keep them out of the hands of the
barbarians. Things like the Opera, Radio Three, the countryside, the law,
the universities. . . Both of them!>>
Sir Humphrey Appleby, in <<Power to the People>>
[courtesy Jonathan Lynn and Anthony Jay's script]
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
letters to be typed in
> On the night, so far as I know, it ain't the administrators who make the
> audience go "wow". When the administrators get fired they simply go off
> to another "administrative" job. That is not the case with musicians.
Unfortunately, it is the case with the industry incompetents. When one
gets fired from, say, London Records, one independent-produces for a while,
and eventually gets to take over the Vanguard catalogue. Shudder.
In the world of classical music, there are many people who are starving who
ought to be flourishing. And there are many people who are flourishing who
really ought to be starving.
David Hurwitz
>In the world of classical music, there are many people who are starving who
>ought to be flourishing. And there are many people who are flourishing who
>really ought to be starving.
>
prognostications of the paranoid and conspiracy theorists. Give is a rest,
Matthew.
Dave Hurwitz
David Hurwitz
>
><<British democracy recognises that you need a system to protect the
>important things of life, and keep them out of the hands of the
>barbarians. Things like the Opera, Radio Three, the countryside, the law,
>the universities. . . Both of them!>>
>
>Sir Humphrey Appleby, in <<Power to the People>>
>
Ah yes, but American democracy recognises that involving government in the fine
arts and other such matters places the important things of life INTO the hands
of barbarians! :-).
Best regards,
Dave
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in
Nope. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
David Hurwitz
>
>David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> appears to have caused the
>following letters to be typed in
>news:67205844.0...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>>> In the world of classical music, there are many people who are starving
>>> who ought to be flourishing. And there are many people who are
>>> flourishing who really ought to be starving.
>>>
>> Then there are the majority, who get along just find despite the worst
>> prognostications of the paranoid and conspiracy theorists. Give is a
>> rest, Matthew.
>
>Nope. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
>
Exactly the problem.
Dave
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
Richard Schultz
:>In the world of classical music, there are many people who are starving who
Actually, the majority are doing something else entirely, which is true
of most of the arts.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Terrymelin
>Alan, ordinarily I respect you, but the above and what followed is absolutely
>on
>of the stupidest and most ignorant things I have ever seen, and it betrays
>not a
>shred of understanding of the reality of the situation of orchestras in the
>United States. The FACT of the matter is that the US supports, without major
>subsidy, some of the greatest orchestras in the world, and has done so for as
>long as orchestras have existed in their present form. The question of
>whether
>or not such institutions represent "cultural treasures" worthy of taxpayer
>support is very much a matter of opinion, and says absolutely nothing about
>the
>culture or commitment of the PEOPLE of the country in question. Indeed, I
>would
>argue that government subsidy actually denigrates the taste of the public by
>preaching culture from on high, and by disenfranchizing the people by robbing
>them of the right to NOT pay for entertainment that does not interest them.
>"Culture" supported by automatic subsidy irrespective of public interest or
>dedication to the cause is, for me, a meaningless display of decadence.
>
I often disagree with Mr. Hurwitz but he is spot on here. Nothing more for me
to add since he outlines it so perfectly.
Right on!
Terry Ellsworth
David Hurwitz
>Actually, the majority are doing something else entirely, which is true
>of most of the arts.
>
Good point!
Dave
Matthew B. Tepper (posts from uswest.net are forged)
following letters to be typed in news:67240415.00003033.075
@drn.newsguy.com:
>>
>>Actually, the majority are doing something else entirely, which is true
>>of most of the arts.
>>
>
> Good point!
They're the people who (relatively speaking) are "starving."
Alain Dagher
>> I would
> argue that government subsidy actually denigrates the taste of the public by
> preaching culture from on high, and by disenfranchizing the people by robbing
> them of the right to NOT pay for entertainment that does not interest them.
> "Culture" supported by automatic subsidy irrespective of public interest or
> dedication to the cause is, for me, a meaningless display of decadence.
>
There is some truth to that, but there are other reasons for subsidies
to the arts. I believe historically, at least in Britain, the main
justification stemmed from the noble (but now unmentionable) idea that
art should be for everyone. The point of subsidies then was to lower
ticket prices so that the so-called common man could attend.
There are other reasons to fund the arts. Many artists need to develop
for years before they have a sell-able product. Funding music schools,
theatre groups, etc... that nurture young talent might be a desirable
goal. It's not clear the free market is the best source of funding for
these endeavours.
ad
Matthew Silverstein
> There is some truth to that, but there are other reasons for subsidies
> to the arts. I believe historically, at least in Britain, the main
> justification stemmed from the noble (but now unmentionable) idea that
> art should be for everyone. The point of subsidies then was to lower
> ticket prices so that the so-called common man could attend.
And this seems to work (at least in London, where even the best orchestra
tickets are relatively inexpensive and where almost all of the best museums
are free).
Matty
Samir Golescu
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Alain Dagher wrote:
> There is some truth to that, but there are other reasons for subsidies
> to the arts. I believe historically, at least in Britain, the main
> justification stemmed from the noble (but now unmentionable) idea that
> art should be for everyone. The point of subsidies then was to lower
> ticket prices so that the so-called common man could attend.
>
> There are other reasons to fund the arts. Many artists need to develop
> for years before they have a sell-able product. Funding music schools,
> theatre groups, etc... that nurture young talent might be a desirable
> goal. It's not clear the free market is the best source of funding for
> these endeavours.
That makes sense too. In practical terms, I'd say that probably a
combination of judiciously directed state-subsidies and strong community
involvement would be the ideal combination. . .
regards,
SG
Bob Harper
Terry has beaten me to the punch. I ordinarily find a great deal to
disagree with in David Hurwitz's posts, but this one, the snappishness
of the opening sentence notwithstanding, hit the nail on the head.
Bob Harper
Richard Schultz
: David Hurwitz wrote:
: There are other reasons to fund the arts. Many artists need to develop
: for years before they have a sell-able product. Funding music schools,
: theatre groups, etc... that nurture young talent might be a desirable
: goal. It's not clear the free market is the best source of funding for
: these endeavours.
Or, if you'd like to think on a bigger scale and in a longer term --
how many things do you think that Mr. Hurwitz can name from ancient
Greece that survive to this day and are *not* examples of publically
funded art?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Alan Cooper
<al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>There are other reasons to fund the arts. Many artists need to develop
>for years before they have a sell-able product. Funding music schools,
>theatre groups, etc... that nurture young talent might be a desirable
>goal. It's not clear the free market is the best source of funding for
>these endeavours.
I think you're right, Alain. The real American tragedy is not the
failure to subsidize the major orchestras, but the almost total demise
of arts education in the public schools. I certainly agree with David
Hurwitz that the institutions that deserve to survive are the ones
that can attract an audience. But that audience has to be nurtured.
AC
Alain Dagher
> In article <exYMa.15277$q42....@charlie.risq.qc.ca>, Alain Dagher <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> : David Hurwitz wrote:
>
> : There are other reasons to fund the arts. Many artists need to develop
> : for years before they have a sell-able product. Funding music schools,
> : theatre groups, etc... that nurture young talent might be a desirable
> : goal. It's not clear the free market is the best source of funding for
> : these endeavours.
>
> Or, if you'd like to think on a bigger scale and in a longer term --
> how many things do you think that Mr. Hurwitz can name from ancient
> Greece that survive to this day and are *not* examples of publically
> funded art?
>
>
I wonder whether one shouldn't also include most of the works of JS Bach
and Michelangelo as being in a sense publicly funded.
ad
Richard Schultz
: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 16:07:38 GMT, Alain Dagher
: <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
Amen and then some. In the Good Old Days, the orchestras would send
musicians (and sometimes the whole ensemble) to (gasp) elementary schools
to introduce the kids to music. Of course, in the Good Old Days, some of
those kids might have had parents who were listening to the Saturday
afternoon Met broadcast. . .
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Alain Dagher
Although I probably agree with you, I think that money comes from a
different piece of the pie. Money spent on education is probably not
considered an arts subsidy, at least for the purposes of this discussion.
I'm not sure about the value of arts education either. My parents
dragged me to museums all over Europe and I only remember being very
bored and anxious to leave.
ad
Ramon Khalona
> >
> >The issue (in America) is simple. You need state subsidy....virtually
> >EVERY national orchestra in the world has this, bar America. You
> >don't think orchestras are worth subsidising......you don't think the
> >country/state should promote them as a state, national and world
> >treasure and you don't believe that as in other parts of the world
> >they speak for YOUR culture, heritage, history. In short, you don't
> >care.
> Etc.
>
> Alan, ordinarily I respect you, but the above and what followed is absolutely on
> of the stupidest and most ignorant things I have ever seen, and it betrays not a
> shred of understanding of the reality of the situation of orchestras in the
> United States. The FACT of the matter is that the US supports, without major
> subsidy, some of the greatest orchestras in the world, and has done so for as
> long as orchestras have existed in their present form. The question of whether
> or not such institutions represent "cultural treasures" worthy of taxpayer
> support is very much a matter of opinion, and says absolutely nothing about the
> culture or commitment of the PEOPLE of the country in question.
I also ordinarily respect your opinion David, but I could not disagree
more with your last sentence. If a culture values Terminator-like
movies more than good music and art, I think it DOES say something
about the culture and about the people's preferences. Nobody likes
paying taxes, but if a culture "votes" (by spending vast sums of
money) overwhelmingly in favor of some form of entertainment over
another, it does say something about the culture's priorities.
>Indeed, I would
> argue that government subsidy actually denigrates the taste of the public by
> preaching culture from on high, and by disenfranchizing the people by robbing
> them of the right to NOT pay for entertainment that does not interest them.
> "Culture" supported by automatic subsidy irrespective of public interest or
> dedication to the cause is, for me, a meaningless display of decadence.
Again, I disagree. As someone who acquired most of his initial
acquaintance of classical music by listening to a private classical AM
station in a Latin American country, I can tell you that had that
medium not been available to me, given my scarce resources at the
time, there is no way I could have penetrated the CM world by
attending concerts or buying music. I believe that a subsidy or a
"grant" (since the word "subsidy" appears to have gained a pretty
negative connotation as this country keeps turning more conservative),
that allows good music performances to be more accessible to many
people who are genuinely interested, but do not have the means to
attend them, is a worthwhile thing and is not a display of decadence
at all. Now, I do not believe that subsidies alone are the solution;
far from it. I believe that a resurgence of good art, and music in
particular, will require more personal involvement by people who are
passionate about it and care enough to devote money and TIME to it.
This is how many public radio and a few surviving CM stations have
managed to survive. Furthermore, the thinking that a government
subsidy "actually denigrates the taste of the public by preaching
culture from on high" is more a reflection of a negative view towards
the role of government than a reflection of reality. Do you believe
that it is a display of decadence when a government actively promotes
healthy eating and exercise habits that would lead to a significant
reduction in health care expenses? I hope not.
Ramon Khalona
Samir Golescu
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Alain Dagher wrote:
> I wonder whether one shouldn't also include most of the works of JS Bach
> and Michelangelo as being in a sense publicly funded.
Michelangelo? In a sense. Bach? More arguably so. But surely one needs to
take into consideration, when drawing similar parallels, the immense
change in the buying power, as well as in the civic rights/responsibilities
of the average citizen in a modern democracy?
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On 3 Jul 2003, Ramon Khalona wrote:
> If a culture values Terminator-like
> movies more than good music and art, I think it DOES say something
> about the culture and about the people's preferences. Nobody likes
> paying taxes, but if a culture "votes" (by spending vast sums of
> money) overwhelmingly in favor of some form of entertainment over
> another, it does say something about the culture's priorities.
Without a doubt it does. The questions remain though:
-- doesn't the fact that a sensible portion of a nation -- granted, not a
majority, but an important part of the well-doing-to-rich people in a
nation -- spends *voluntarily* money on high arts speak on the fact that
at least some in that nation "do care"? (remember the original posting was
alleging that " 'you' don't care")
-- in what culture people would grant preeminence through "vote", rather
than through government policies, to a mere Bach, in front of the esteemed
"Terminator" series? I would like to move in there, urgently. . .
regards,
SG
P.S. It is a matter of consensus that the metal liquid "Terminator 2" was
cute & sexy -- have you ever seen those slick moves in an opera star??
( :