Are there others out there who feel the same way? Posted by mbr5550 on: 2005-03-22 00:40:33 The hoped for response and recognition of the 2005 CBDNA Conference Wind Band Celebration concerts, premieres and related activities by the New York press music critics did not materialize. Except for a notice of the University of Texas Wind Ensembles Sunday concert in the Friday February 25 edition of the New York Times, I did not see any mention of what transpired. In an address at the 1981 CBDNA Conference at the University of Michigan, composer-conductor and wind band/ensemble supporter Gunther Schuller stated, the wind band/ensemble world is isolated from the rest of the musical community. Schuller pleaded that a great effort be made to ...get the rest of the music world to hear us perform, to participate in our conferences and conventions, to understand what an important part of the developing musical tradition we are... He said he lamented this situation but warned, (it) will not changeuntil we in the wind ensemble and symphonic band world fight back Continuing, Schuller stated that, This will take some enterprise and some money! But it will be money well spent and will eliminate the misbegotten notion by some that wind band music is music of a lesser stripe, composed by lesser composers, and thus performed by lesser musicians. He concluded his address with these three important statements, You must more aggressively pursue that establishment world, with its critics and tastemakers, its foundations and other benefactors, its managers, its entrepreneurs and its musical leaders. You must reach out beyond your own seemingly large but actually small world. FOR THEY WILL NOT COME TO YOU; YOU MUST GO TO THEM. MOSTLY THEY DONT KNOW YOU EXIST The non-recognition by the New York press of what happened at the 2005 CBDNA Conference clearly affirms Schullers concluding remarks. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS SITUATION ? Is it time for those of us who want to secure a position for the wind band/ensemble in the Art of Music community to formulate and initiate a strategy for educating the musical establishments critics and tastemakers, foundations, benefactors, managers, entrepreneurs and musical leaders about what we are doing and what we have accomplished? In the mid-20th century members of CBDNA and others recognized the need to expand the body of wind band/ensemble literature in both quality and quantity. We have pursued this mission and continue to do so at the start of the 21st century. However, if our progress is to continue it seems important and necessary that we affirm our faith and devotion to the College Bandas a serious and distinctive medium of musical expression (first of CBDNAs Declaration of Principles) and mount a campaign for educating/gaining the attention of the musical establishment community. Are there others out there who feel the same way? Frank Battisti (Statement also posted as a Word document on Discussion Threads index page.) Posted by mbr4629 on: 2005-03-22 05:47:47 It is indeed disappointing that there was little or no coverage of our convention in NYC by the press. Schuller's comments from 1981 seem prophetic, but we have made progress! The New York composers ARE aware of us...John Corigliano, David Del Tredici, Richard Danielpour, and others, have written excellent new works for band. We must continue to commission these kinds of composers, who have discovered our interesting devotion to new music and are already spreading the word! We must keep at it, and also convince the NY area conservatories that wind music IS worth study and inclusion in their curricula. But let us also remember that NY is an unusual place; it does set trends for much of the world, but not for everything. Our band movement is still in the grass roots stage, but it someday will reach center stage! -Mark Spede Posted by mbr4917 on: 2005-03-26 08:48:25 After attending the NYC CBDNA and engaging in many discussions related to this issue, it is concerning that so many of us desire external validation. Why? Are we so insecure that we cannot be comfortable in courses we chart? Unless I interpreted Larry Livingstons comments incorrectly, he was saying that this validation we seek will not come any time soon, if at all. If this is true, should we be overly concerned? He challenged us not to follow the path of the Symphony Orchestra but to follow our own. I think that this is exactly what we are doing by the composers we commission and the events we plan. As an organization, it is clear that we are trying very hard not to bury our heads in the sand and are reaching across the isle to other members of the artistic community. As with all diplomatic missions, sometimes the extended hand is embraced and other times it is slapped. We should not be overly surprised when this happens and it does not mean that the hand should not have been extended in the first place. As for a comprehensive campaign for education and attention? This may indeed be a good idea but we should not be surprised if the short-term results are minimal. Perhaps long-term results may be more satisfying, but then again, maybe not. I have heard it said many times that we should do what we do and let history sort out its significance. This seems like a wise statement because what we are doing is seeking out the best and engaging them. Lets move ahead being comfortable that we are doing the right things and not get so caught up in a quest for external validation. Ed Powell Posted by mbr5550 on: 2005-03-28 15:43:54 Ed raises a good point--critics cover orchestras, etc., because they have a place in the culture at large. People pay attention to what professional orchestras play, and therefore media covers what they do. Orchestras have their place in the culture, as I see it, for 2 reasons: history (repertoire primarily) and listeners. We can only continue to do what we're doing to build our own history. My question is, what are we doing to find an audience? Rather than seeking some ephemeral "legitimacy," might it not be wiser to find an audience in the culture at large? Listeners will bring an undeniable legitimacy, no matter what the established art world thinks of what we do--the New York Times does, after all, cover Britney Spears, and they do so because people listen to her music. (Im sitting in an internet cafe in Lisbon, Portugal right now, and it isn't Beethoven playing over the speakers--it's Ms. Spears' "Toxic".) Why worry what institutions think of what we do? Institutions don't change unless a groundswell of outside pressure makes them--that's inherent in the nature of an institution. Finding an audience, bringing all of the exciting music we make to listeners out in the world we live in, will give our endeavors far more relevance and credibility than the NY Times, the "orchestra world" (that slowly dying dinosaur-relic of a long-vanished aristocratic world), or any other institution could ever hope to convey. If actual listeners are excited by our art, all else will follow. My fear is not continued ostracization by an establishment, but an irrelevance of concert music due to the absence of any listeners. What we do is relevant to the world we live in (Circus Maximus, anyone?), something the orchestra increasingly cannot claim. But if no one is listening, our own institutions will, sooner or later, stop funding what we do. And then where will we be? Stuart Sims Posted by mbr6199 on: 2005-03-28 16:22:29 I attended, with great joy, the NY conference. It was a thrill to hear the fantastic concerts, the great sessions, and to see friends, old and new. Two of the great statements from the conference, in my view, are those by Frank posted above, and those made by Larry Livingston at the closing of the conference (and expanded upon in the latest CBDNA Report. These statements confirm my belief that CBDNA and the greater wind band profession are truly at a crossroads. As Frank so eloquently stated at the NEC alumni session in NY, we have worked for years to increase the quality of our literature, and in large part, we have done/are doing that. And as Frank further stated, "Now what? What will the next generation do?" I agree with what others have stated in their sadness and dismay about the lack of attention the NY conference brought us from the greater musical community, and about the "Maazel slam." What the heck do we have to do to get some darned respect? After hearing Larry though, I realize that perhaps this is indeed the wrong question. Perhaps a better question than "how?" is "why?" Should we continue to beat our heads against the wall of the orchestral establishment? To what end? Perhaps there are other questions that are tacitly brought up by Frank and Larry. For example, there are so many fine ensembles in our profession that give concerts to audiences that barely outnumber the participants. Why? It cannot alone be lack of status that we have vs. other "art music" ensembles. Could it also be the nature of the music we are performing? Believe me, I GREATLY admire all of the new music I heard at the conference; I bought/will buy the scores, and I will study them, in spite of the fact that my present ensembles have no chance of ever performing them. I want to know every note of them, and everything there is to know about their creation. Further, I think that we will be looked at in future history books as the ensembles that furthered the cause of new music more than any other. But if so few people are in our audiences, who gains? Perhaps part of our task now is to look seriously at programming practices to see if, in addition to serving the advancement of the literature, we are serving the needs of our real or potential audiences. This has been a burning question for me since the conference. I can also report that in conversations I had with other small college/community college conductors, the matter of how the literature is progessing is a concern. I wish that I could hear more music that: A. Is new, and stretches the ear, but is playable by many of the ensembles represented by CBDNA, i.e. it isn't difficult for the sake of being difficult... B. Is new, and stretches the ear of the audience, but doesn't sent a great many away while they shake their heads in dismay C. Will have dozens of performances over the next few years, rather than a dozen or so. Has our new literature progressed in compositional techniques faster than has the ability of our audiences to appreciate it and understand it? I think that this is an important question. Jenn Martin Cuesta College Posted by mbr5550 on: 2005-04-17 12:47:10 Jenn, you raise two good points, which I don't think necessarily are related: 1. Why don't we have bigger audiences?; and 2. why isn't there more good new music that is playable by a wider variety of ensembles? I address #1 in my post above, but in sum I think that if we want bigger audiences, we have to find ways to reach them--some new content will be posted on the site in the next couple of months to that end. As to #2, I definitely agree that there is a paucity of interesting, substantive music for ensembles of limited technical resources, and it's a need that must be met. But I think it's not very fruitful to look to CBDNA, or to any other organization, to address that need. Nearly all of the premieres heard in NYC were commissioned either by a single institution, or by consortium, assembled by one or two individuals who simply hustled and found the requisite number of people willing to buy in. I have commissioned a piece this way, assembling a consortium myself, and have participated in several other consortia over the past few years, and will continue to do so, enthusiastically. I think any of us who perceives a need, and has had discussions with colleagues who share that need, ought to address it--if you've spoken to 9 colleagues who agree with you, all you need to do is find $500 each and a (probably younger) talented composer, and have a work written that meets your needs. The University of Texas is right to spend all that money on the Corigliano piece, even though most of us will only ever dream of performing it, because it was a project that served the needs of their students and program, and the philosophical interests of that institution. In my opinion, that's how we all should spend our schools' money, to serve the interests of our respective students and programs. Institutionally, CBDNA is right, I think, to focus on commissions from "big name" composers, as that is where the clout of the organization is most needed. But it's important to remember that a CBDNA commission happens just like any other consortium, and that Jack Stamp has had to hustle to convince people to buy in, just like anyone would. In short, for me the best policy is that when I perceive a real need in my area, that I try to solve it (and you, and the person at the college down the road, and anyone else who cares). It would be so easy for the hundreds of community and junior college directors around the country to commission quite a substantive body of work (that's interesting AND playable) within only a decade or so. It only takes someone with enough vision, perseverence, and moxie to convince those directors to put up a little bit of money each year to make it happen. Stuart Sims Posted by mbr4887 on: 2005-04-22 11:25:27 As a former second-liner among college band directors, I may be guilty of presumptuousness in offering an opinion on the public relations issue addressed by Gunther Schuller and Frank Battisti. But as one who was privileged for 30 years to observe from a safe distance the ever-widening gap between CBDNA and the world outside, I feel that the turtlenecks have succeeded in isolating themselves from formerly adoring fans and supporters of what once were called bands. Not too many years ago colleges and universities enjoyed widespread acclaim for their bands concert bands, marching bands, and some others that were unabashedly called bands of one stripe or another. Today, however, increasing numbers of college/university conductors who identify themselves by the title Director of Bands seem bent on calling their ensembles anything but bands. In an apparent effort at elitism, they have created an identity crisis with their various designations wind ensemble, wind symphony, wind orchestra, et alia none of which accurately describes the groups of wind and percussion instruments they conduct. Could it be that former concert-goers and supporters who remember what a band was, might out of confusion be reluctant to venture into this arcane world of wind organizations? And might the current trend toward anonymity result in CBDNAs renaming itself College Wind Directors National Association? Posted by mbr4887 on: 2005-04-22 11:46:15 Unfortunately, most quotation marks and hyphens were stripped from my previous message during the posting process. Perhaps the webmaster can offer a solution. Posted by mbr5863 on: 2005-04-28 20:53:39 The previous author makes an important point regarding the identity of bands. On the way to the Midwest Clinic I was pleased to notice that TIME magazine mentioned the passing of Frederick Fennell. Unfortunately, the short article lauded Fennell as the creator of the WOODWIND ENSEMBLE. Soon after, my own President's office called to request our wind ensemble to perform for a guest speaker--except the President's assistant could not remember the name of our group even though she had been working closely with us for 14 years. I asked her to just call it a band. While I am sure Fennell was quite right in calling it something other than a band in the 1950s, we have now created our own branding nightmare. We should take a tip from the marketing of sports organizations. They would never call the PGA, the Professional Dimpled Sphere Association. The NFL, NBA, NHL all are clearly identified by the media and our the general public. We are often jealous of the media attention sports organizations receive, but more importantly, perhaps we should be learning from them. I recently attended an indoor lacrosse game with 18,000 in attendance! We have a superior product, but it needs to be marketed correctly, from a grassroots standpoint as well as from a centralized organization. The LPGA has only about 1200 members and they have successfully found a way to promote their activity--with all of their success happening in the last couple of decades. Even the late Pope John Paul II understood the power of the media. He is quoted as saying that if it didn't happen on television, it didn't happen. As a profession, we need to find a way to market our wonderful world of music to the general population. That's why I recommend an alternative funding plan for CBDNA similar to NASM, ASOL, and the NCAA (see post on New Paradigm for CBDNA). The power of the consortium has been proven in developing repertoire--why not focus it on increasing participation and audiences. If a tree falling in a forest makes no sound, does a wind ensemble playing in an empty concert hall make music? Steven Moore Posted by mbr5443 on: 2005-05-20 14:16:07 In his excellent book, The Future of Freedom, Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, Fareed Zakaria reminds us that, in this country, "For much of the twentieth century, professionals formed a kind of modern aristocracy, secure in its status and concerned with the countrys welfare and broader interests. They and other leading citizens took upon themselves certain broader public duties. Most of the great museums, symphonies, opera companies, public parks, and libraries in American cities and towns were built not by the state but by groups of such civic-minded individuals." He goes on to note that, "For all the elitism and privilege that accompanies such a world, American democracy was well served by public-spirited elites." Writer, John Seabrook--in commenting on the process accompanying our transition from a culture whose standards were set by elites to our current, populist culture--observes, "The old cultural arbiters, whose job it was to decide what was good in the sense of valuable, [are] being replaced by a new type of arbiter, whose skill [is] to define 'good' in terms of 'popular'." Apparently, SS's fear, stated in a previous thread, that we may be looking at "an irrelevance of concert music due to the absence of any listeners" is well founded...unless, of course, concert band music again becomes our culture's popular music. And how likely is that? (We may recall that during the heyday of professional bands--approximately 100 years ago, during the pre-recordings, pre-radio/television/I-pod/internet days--bands, in addition to playing concert music, were a part of the popular music scene.) Then again, the situation may not warrant the "fait accompli" mindset that such a revelation naturally incites. We simply have to bear in mind that today's tastemakers are "everyman". As Frank reminds us in the first thread, Schuller long ago enjoined, "they will not come to you; you must go to them." Assuming Schuller to be correct, perhaps the dialogue we should now engage in is one that might eventually result in a complete reframing of "you must go to them." In other words, a paradigmatic shift that helps move us beyond our typical interpretations of that concept: "play music that band audiences 'want' to hear and they will come;" "if our repertoire is good enough, intelligent, informed classical music listeners will come;" "if we continue to commission the very best composers, the music critics will jump on the bandwagon;" "with the right marketing, we can build a following;" etc. To be sure, there is truth and validity in all of those statements. Still, those schemes are fundamentally concerned with "bringing them to us" and define "them" as a relatively small group of arbiters. It seems to me that as long as we maintain such "either/or" thinking, rather than employing "both/and" reasoning, we will remain stuck in the same, disintegrating box. In other words, let's use the truth found in those statements AND. To be sure, I have NOT discovered a "magic carpet" that will carry the wind band out of our box to a land of unimagined riches. However, I am vitally interested in seeing us evolve into a more significant strand within our culture's fabric. To do so, though, I believe we first must answer a very fundamental question: what do we possess that is truly invaluable to our current culture? Many have argued that creativity will be the single most important economic commodity in our society's future. Writer and digital humanist Jason Ohler calls the arts "the fourth r", reasoning that in a multi-media world, humans need the skills that the making of art instill in order to understand and effectively communicate in such a world. Richard Florida and many others have persuasively demonstrated that the "creative class" (Ray and Anderson call them "cultural creatives"), comprising approximately one-third of our society's workers (and growing in size), seeks "active" leisure activities; i.e., they are NOT inclined to sit in concert halls, etc., but more likely to actively pursue the making of music, or at least "rub elbows" with those who are making music. Additionally, "cultural creatives" seek the "authentic" in life, including experiences, goods, and services. Finally, neuroscience is continuing to generate new evidence illustrating that music acts as a powerful agent in the brain and, significantly, that actively engaging in music carries the potential to alter the mind in positive ways. For me, all of this generates questions with regard to Gunther's admonition. To whom should we NOW be going? (In today's world, who are "them"?) Where should we be going? (Where should we be meeting them?) And, a big one, what should we be taking them when we go? (E.g., how can we deliver invaluable and "authentic" experiences?) If creativity is such a precious commodity today, shouldn't we be offering to every student on our campuses courses that genuinely cultivate creativity? If art is, indeed, the "fourth r", shouldn't we facilitate opportunities for our performance and education majors to be involved with elementary classroom teachers out in the schools? If a large number of gifted people (i.e., the "creative class") are actively seeking to make music, shouldn't we find a way to offer beginning instrumental courses, improvisation workshops, etc., to the adults on our campuses and in our communities? Should those of us teaching graduate students be pointing them toward cross-disciplinary research projects with neuroscientists and others? What does any of that have to do with developing audiences for wind band performances? Maybe nothing, but then again, maybe everything. If the forest has been clear-cut and there are no trees left to fell, then we first must replant the forest. Gary Hill Posted by mbr4819 on: 2005-06-09 13:20:38 Colleagues, Who are these "critics and tastemakers" of whom Schuller spoke? How many are there? What music schools, composers (living and dead), thinkers, and cities do they find significant? What kind of pressures do they feel, professionally? Did they play/sing in ensembles? Heck, how much money do they make as critics? Recently The National Arts Journalism Program at Columbia University and the Music Critics Association of North America pooled their energies to create a fascinating survey. The answers to these questions (and much more) are available on-line at: http://www.najp.org/news/pastnews/news-classical-music-critic.html This survey is enlightening. It certainly provides context to the question of our ability to connect with critics and vice versa. Peter Witte Related Link Posted by mbr4782 on: 2005-06-10 09:10:05 Hello everyone, Jenn Martin's question: "Now what?" seems to me to touch the heart of the discussion. For as long as I have been in this profession, the overarching goal of conductors/music directors has been to improve musical quality--first of the ensembles themselves, then of the repertoire. These goals are, necessarily, inward-looking. I view the role of the next generation of wind conductors (those of us who are currently working) as one of finding an audience for wind ensembles and our music. The first step, I think, is to decide that creating audiences is important. From there, one becomes willing to embrace approaches that further that goal. And this process is, of course, outward-looking. I also believe that we can't be too harsh on NY critics or ourselves about not getting much notice in New York. If we are still struggling to get audiences and publicity on our campuses, why would we think that New York would care about what we do? Local efforts are not very eye-catching (nor, unfortuantely, do they typically lead to tenure). But I believe than in the long run they will pay the greatest dividends for the future of our medium and the important works of art that it inspires and preserves. Michael Votta Posted by mbr5942 on: 2005-06-13 13:08:04 I've been to several CBDNA conferences now, and while there have been interesting and well-researched papers, and programs that are both artistically and intellectually challenging, I think that in our effort to legitimize what we do and give it credibility we have indeed lost any semblence of accessibility for our audience. There were many wonderful performances this year, and while there were a few pieces that were interesting, there were no programs that I would want to attend on my own outside of the conference setting. I remember that one of my teacher's used to say "program one piece for the conductor, one for the ensemble, and one for the audience" (attributed to Dr. Richard Strange). For me it seems that too often the audience is being left out of that equation. Could it be that conductor's think they are programming for the audience, but after living in academia, where they are better able to escape the realities of marketing, and earned vs. unearned revenue than in other settings, they have become too focused on very narrow artistic parameters? The phrase "how many butts do I have to get into seats in order to pay for this concert" is not necessairly something that we should be afraid to ask, even if we are not dependent on the answer for streams of revenue. If we want to fill the seats with a broader cross-section of the populace we must program a combination of works that are aesthically pleasing, and at times even entertaining. Any orchestral artistic administrator, when planning a season, will be able to tell you which combination of works will yield an acceptable house. Their information is drawn from years of reports and audience numbers. Sadly this information is not as readily available for bands given the relatively few numbers of professional bands that would track this data. We need new assessment methods to track what our audience likes and wants to hear. There is no shame in a work for band being popular. It's done well for Stars and Stripes Forever. But when was the last time a college wind ensemble played it in concert? More and more I've found HS level players who don't know how to play a Sousa march. And if colleges don't play Sousa, then the artform will disappear. Since the CBDNA Conference in NY was designed for a college-level audience (were there even any HS bands that came to the concerts?), and since the concerts were programmed to feature "new and important works" - a phrase my father used to describe music that was usually less than enjoyable, and destined to never be heard again - it's no wonder no one paid any attention to the conference. Marketing, branding, and a complete re-thinking of the role of bands in America is required. Because what exists now seems to be almost desperate for acceptance within the academic/intellectual/artistic community. And apparently our audiences don't want to see our show of "Desperate Band Directors"....how many of you said "I'm a Wind Ensemble Conductor"? Well--maybe that's the problem. Keith Johnston