mmmm…that new Conductor smell!

It would be a sadly familiar scenario if 2 major orchestras are looking to their new maestros to seemingly solve all of their problems or even save their orchestras….please our egos are already big enough! We as Music Directors may be the leaders but we lead a team, and to suggest that a conductor can be the fix for major organizational problems would be akin to suggesting that an executive director can fix any major artistic problems……

Yannick Nézet-Séguin

There is no issue with an organization thinking that a new conductor brings renewal and hope but I do find it troubling that the new shiny Music Director (MD) is seen as this almighty savior.  Sure at the beginning like in a marriage there is a honeymoon period, but let’s not forget, it is still an arranged marriage because the dating period is often very short, measurable in days, and then a long term commitment is entered into.  Down the road it is typical as is happening now in some places that when there are major labor problems for instance, that same conductor is often not to be found!  Mostly MD’s are not there day to day working it, in the major groups it can be as little as 12 – 16 weeks a year!  The idea that an MD is a savior is based on the emotional rush of the hope and the new, and not on reality.  He or she may be a large piece of the puzzle, but they’re not the whole puzzle.  An ideal scenario would be an orchestra that has a strong identity and deep ties to a community, then seeks a conductor that enhances and strengthens that which is already strong.  It has to be about organizational identity.  Otherwise the job announcement might as well read – Orchestra looking for Music Director to give us our identity. I mean our primary skill set involves our ability to communicate musically and making it louder, longer, faster and more exciting wont automatically translate into huge increases in donations and ticket sales.  All stakeholders are needed for that, and also for artistic growth.  What they also need is time with the Music Director, a continuity so that a plan for the long term can be formulated.

The National Symphony and the Philadelphia Orchestra are great Orchestras, no question!  They are pillars of exemplary artistic standards with Philly especially having an extraordinary history and that “sound”.  They have that without any conductor! Well both orchestras have new MD’s although ironically the NSO hired Eschenbach, Philly’s MD once removed.

I was pleased to read that Anne Midgette in the Washington Post wrote of this in terms of the time it takes to build a relationship, and that in the end that relationship will prove to have the lasting effect on an orchestra’s successful future:

Certainly the new beginning is a quicker fix than the challenge of getting excited about making music together for the sixteenth or twentieth or thirtieth year — and it’s an easier way to sell tickets. You didn’t see Slatkin on many buses in the last few years of his tenure. But the old-fashioned side of me thinks it would be nice to see more of the long-term marriages — the ones where both sides know what the other is about to do or say, and can finish each other’s sentences, figuratively speaking — work.

To the point of the buses, buzz doesn’t pay for bus for that, marketing strategy along with dollars from the Orchestra’s approved budget does, but nevertheless she makes a lot of sense.  Now in this article about the new MD at the  Philadelphia Orchestra Yannick Nézet-Séguin, well the headline says it all:

Can Yannick Nézet-Séguin conduct a minor miracle at Philadephia?

From the article:

The Fabulous Philadelphians, as his new band is sometimes called, have bet the next seven years on Nézet-Séguin’s ability to galvanize the public and restore the orchestra’s lustre after a punishing period of organizational uncertainty and financial decline.

Almost everything quoted though is about his ability as an artist, and he himself, quite rightly (as it is his primary strength) is focusing on this also:

“Everything is on the table,” says Nézet-Séguin. “We’re just starting to discuss how to build the orchestra up artistically … I’m a music director at heart, I’m someone who likes to be involved deeper with the musicians, to know them, to know what to expect from them, to find out what to do in order to go further with them. And of course that reflects also on the city and the institution as a whole.”

Obviously the article is one person’s opinion and is not coming from the organization, but it would behoove (love that word) the organization to roll out a plan that is all encompassing to go along with the appointment to demonstrate the organizational approach for the future that includes the artistic direction.  Like I have said before it is about the structure and the foundation, you can’t build from the top down, but I do hope that conductor training changes to include more administrative and people skills so that they can become more involved in the day to day running of the organization.   Nevertheless with all of the bad news we keep reading about, it is good to hear about some excitement out there!

7 thoughts on “mmmm…that new Conductor smell!”

  1. I think that the expectation for a conductor to create a new identity for the orchestra is not linked to how that conductor is with the musicians, or not too much about programing either.

    A conductor is the face of an orchestra. So a new conductor is the chance for an orchestra to create a deeper relationship with the audience. It is hard for a faceless entity to do that, because an audience member won’t feel connected to a group as much as to one single person.

    Because the conductor is the star of the orchestra, it his he who has the power to bring people in, to make people be interested. A conductor’s crucial skill is leadership, and that goes beyond the podium. Leadership in the community is as crucial.

    That’s why communities hope for a miracle when a new conductor comes in. They hope that he will show true leadership by going beyond what the job description entails, and that he will care enough to embrace the importance of his role in the community.

    • Geraldine
      Very well thought out and well put! I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, only that a new conductor should also try to make the orchestra the star, and the organization should also understand that with a new conductor and a new vision, that the infrastructure might also need a serious examination and remodel, so that sustainability is achieved.
      Ron

      • Yes, of course, nobody wants a conductor who connects with the audience but not with the orchestra! I love Bill’s comment, because when I was writing my first comment, I was thinking about the parallel there is between a conductor and a pastor. A successful pastor will be the one who brings tremendous love, care and passion to his congregation, and also the one who will connect to the community to bring in new people.

        • Geraldine
          To your pastor analogy, I have always thought that pastors don’t preach to the converted but rather, preach so that the converted want to spread the word byond the walls of the Church. With a conductor it should be the same thing but with the orchestra and of course the music so that the word of mouth spreads that the Symphony is worthy of attendance and support. In Springfield our best marketing programs have involved the audience, and in 5 years our audiences increased 105%
          Ron

  2. Hey Ron,

    There’s a big difference between conductor and Music Director.

    A conductor puts a show together.

    A Music Director should have short and long term goals as far as programming (for the community as well as the orchestra’s health), fundraising, and community involvement. S/he should also achieve those goals. (Notice I didn’t use the verb, “try”).

    You can say the orchestra is the star, but (hopefully) they’re there for good. They also dress uniformly and therefore have no face. They also have little say in how the orchestra is run or (more toward their expertise) what they play.

    Though they make no sound, Music Directors are much more identifiable than, say, the second trombonist. A Music Director should be an orchestra’s steward and be expected to leave his/her orchestra in a better place than s/he received it.

    I’m sorry, but a Music Director should be charged with more responsibilities than what you call your “skills set”. Yes, your egos are huge because you guys think your ideas are important enough to to stand in front of 80 people for a week then have them do what you want for (at best) a couple of nights in front of (at best) hundreds of people. That’s fine. That’s the job description. The music business isn’t struggling, but the classical music business is. And the reason is that everyone (EVERYONE) is skirting responsibility. What would Leonard Bernstein say if he read this article?

    Music Directors should lead by providing context and insight to audiences, being a defender of history, being a defender of the arts, being a fundraiser, and not just making things “louder, longer, or faster.”

    Music Directors should also stick up for their orchestra in bad times.

    MW

    • Umm…I agree with you, except I was only suggesting that if an Orchestra is struggling, a new Music Director is not a silver bullet and if there are problems with the different workings or even the entire organization, then a Music Director doesn’t magically make those problems go away. It all needs to be worked on! Optimism doesn’t equal success, we need as conductors solid infrastructure to be able to help maximize an Orchestra’s potential so that we aren’t just conductors, but Music Directors, able to fulfill all the duties that you outline…..and more, as I get to do because the Springfield Symphony has a solid infrastructure!

Comments are closed.

Send this to a friend