Category: Commentary

33 Years of Composer Advocacy: Celebrating the Legacy of Ralph Jackson

Ralph Jackson

Ralph Jackson. Photo by Scott Bartucca, courtesy BMI Classical

Whenever I find myself grappling with a significant question in my musical life, I ask Ralph Jackson for advice. He never gives it. Yet invariably I come away with a clearer understanding of what I need to do.

Ralph is a kind of sage, a savant with an uncanny gift for seeing beyond superficial complexities into the real essence of a situation. Ralph’s perspective is always insightful, often provocative. It is never predictable. Ever.

Sometimes I’ll find myself wondering: “What would So-and-So say about this?” You can’t do that with Ralph because his brain is wired differently. He just doesn’t think like most other people. You may say to yourself: “Ah, I know where he’s going…” And suddenly you find yourself following Ralph down a path you didn’t even know existed.

Throughout his career Ralph has shared his insights countless times with so many composers. Ralph cares deeply about composers. More importantly, he understands composers—because he was one.

In 1976, two years after completing a performance degree in oboe, Ralph earned a degree in composition from the University of Texas at Austin. In each of the following two years, he won the BMI Student Composer Award.

In 1979 Ralph took a leave from the PhD program in composition at the University of Iowa (where he also worked as a professional oboist), and moved to New York City. Later that same year he won an ASCAP Young Composer Award and (following a brief stint at Associated Music Publishers/G Schirmer) began working for BMI.

Writing about his metamorphosis from composer to administrator, Ralph observes:

“Certainly there are administrators who are also very successful composers. These are almost always individuals with a tremendous, unstoppable creative urge. They have no choice other than to write music. That was not me. Instead, my passion began to be redirected to helping other composers.”

Ralph has pursued that passion for more three decades. His extensive travels have given him a broad view of the contributions composers make to our world today. Ralph is fiercely intelligent and boldly outspoken when the occasion demands. Yet his generosity often takes the form of quiet, behind-the-scenes actions, and the people who benefit rarely ever know about them.

Working his way up the ranks at BMI, Ralph eventually became Vice President for Classical Music Relations. In the ‘90s he began working with the BMI Foundation (a separate not-for-profit that supports the creation, performance and study of music), becoming President in 2002. In 2007 he was awarded the Letter of Distinction from the American Music Center, for his “significant contribution to contemporary American Music.”

Now, after almost thirty-three years of service, Ralph Jackson has retired from BMI. He will continue his service to music as President Emeritus of the BMI Foundation, and on the boards of MATA (Music at the Anthology) and the Charles Ives Society.

Over the years my wife Cynthia and I have shared many memorable meals with Ralph and his partner, the composer and guitarist David Leisner. Ralph and Cindy are a dangerous combination. Once they get started telling stories, it’s all over. Ralph is wickedly funny. His account of driving with Lou Harrison and Bill Colvig (a white-knuckle ride I’ve also experienced) is roll-on-the-floor hilarious.

Ralph and David are avid art collectors. And Ralph himself is a painter, who’s produced a continuing series of abstract portraits of his friends. In my studio is a small, color-charged painting titled Cindy Adams with Police and Lightning. But that’s another story…

Ralph is fearless, relentlessly creative, and always open to new ideas and experiences. I look forward to many more delightful dinners in the future. And I wait with curiosity to see what surprises he has in store for his encore. But for the moment, I’m confident that I’m not alone in voicing my heartfelt gratitude to Ralph Jackson for all that he’s done for American composers and their music.

Ralph Jackson Painting

Cindy Adams with Police and Lightning. © Ralph Jackson. Used with permission.

Why Do We Write Where & When We Write?

Sometimes, I envy my composition students. I loved being a student. I remember sleeping in until noon. That was awesome. I remember the excitement of learning new things about new music things, and writing new things at all hours of the day and night. I remember we ticked away on malleable composer-clocks. That was fabulous. Time felt easily scheduled and free. In 2002, I left school and somehow continued to write things; yet I wrote under a new umbrella of anxiety and discomfort. I did not have a hold on how I could control and shape my writing time.

Over the course of the last decade—a path that runs through a handful of adjunct teaching jobs, having a kid, living and freelancing in New York City, and now nearing my fifth year on the other side of the desk as a full-time faculty composer—it became necessary to snap my Dali-glob of a composer-clock into a strictly delineated circular grid. Apart from the time we take for performances, networking, promoting our work, etc., I am fascinated by how we composers inhabit our composer-clocks. Writing time: where is it, when is it, how is it.

In 2004, I had a late-night drink with composer Betsy Jolas after we had gone to hear the St. Petersburg Chamber Choir present Rachmaninov’s Vespers. Betsy spoke of the first time she met Stravinsky, her summers at Tanglewood, and her children. I asked her, “How did you find time to write while caring for young kids?” She explained: First, one makes time to write; second, she had a special attic, all her own. She would sneak upstairs at 3 a.m. and write until the children awoke. She called it “my precious, protected, space and time with my music.”

I grew up in beautiful Boulder, Colorado, in a house built into a hill nestled beneath the Flatirons. Along with a perfect view of the south side of I.M. Pei’s stunning National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) building, our house had a funky, small, modernist layout. The “yard” consisted of multiple levels with rock steps leading to little curious outside-spaces to explore. I often awoke at night to one cricket singing, deer rustling, aspen leaves twinkling in the breeze. It was quiet.

The most dazzling place I knew as a kid was my mom’s parents’ house in Northern Indiana’s Dune Acres, on the shore of Lake Michigan. With architectural characteristics of Bauhaus and the International Style, its layout was supreme funkytown: cool angles everywhere, half-walls, a bewindowed breakfast nook that jetted out over trees, a “yard” of multiple levels with rock steps leading to secret, small, side patios. I often awoke at night to the steady waves whispering on the beach. It was quiet.

I love visiting friends’ and colleagues’ “places of work.” The way we as individuals shape the environments devoted to our creativity is telling. Our spaces are windows into who we are as creative thinkers: precisely where the piano or keyboard is placed; if there is a writing table, its size, shape, and location; what, if anything, one chooses to hang on walls. Compelling among these spaces are those in New York City—workspace design gets mighty quirky in minimal square-footage. (Mine was seven-feet by three-feet when I lived there.) There is also a fun-ness in our dealing with our “stuff”: some studios are so pristinely organized they verge on being hermetically sealed; some have scores of scores, books, sticky notes, instruments, electronic gear, piles of paper seemingly strewn haphazardly. We all have our ways of organization, organized chaos, or preferred chaos here.

Throughout the apartment-hopping days of college to today, I have meticulously laid out my writing spaces. I also obsessively studied the history of architecture. I wrote, and still write, music inspired by buildings. I now understand the symbiosis of all of this: a thirty-eight-year evolution of a cognitive comfort zone, deeply rooted in, and informed by, the architecture of the spaces I inhabit. To ease the struggles of writing, I devote varied compositional activities to specific locations. These days, the writing time I have in my office at school, or in a coffee shop, is devoted to proofreading, editing, and making to-do lists. Large- and small-scale imagining, choosing notes, pacing while considering what comes next, I do best in my tiny home studio. It is a nook; it looks west over the Ann Arbor treeline, and its walls form a funky-angled trapezoid. The space feels easy.

In 2007, I caught up with composer Chen Yi over lunch. She was immersed in a busy season full of travel. I asked her how she manages to keep up her writing with her packed schedule. She told me she often writes on planes, and lit up at the possibility of the middle seat being empty, allowing her to spread out her work.

Whatever we have, whatever we choose to do, fills our lives. Composers with kids are no more busy than those without, composers who teach are no more busy than those who do not, and composers with multiple converging deadlines are no more busy than those with lengthy stretches of time between. Each of us is simply different-busy. The obesity of to-do lists ebbs and flows in seasons of varied intensities for everyone.

Student composers are a particular sort of different-busy, in part because they are still gaining a multi-textured self-awareness, one not limited to their evolving creative capacities, but also including the development of time-management skills. When a student opens a lesson with, “I didn’t have time to write much this week,” we talk about what that means: Are they scheduling writing time? Are they able to stick with that schedule? Do they protect their writing time from external interruptions (e.g., turn the phone off)? How are they using that time?

I believe it is important, particularly for young composers, to commit to a diligent habit of writing every day. Seth Godin has a great blog post about every-day writing, and what applies to writers of words is also relevant to writers of music. Godin’s blog is primarily focused on small-business marketing strategies. I like his posts because they are short, interesting, and frequently contain little gems of creative wisdom that resonate with an artist’s life. I often check @ThisIsSethsBlog on Twitter first thing in the morning, which one day revealed this delicious irony.

Over the last few years, my primary writing time has settled into fairly consistent spans of late night or early morning hours, which was not merely born out of a necessity from “much else to do” during the day. Although managing my own different-busy—I parent, I compose, I teach—my choice of these wee hours for creative focus is also informed by the sonic spaces and thinking-time of my youth; a propensity as a kid to enjoy awake-time when everyone else was asleep, and possibly most importantly, my efforts to carve out a specific space with a veil of silence: I need silence to write. Within the mountains of emailing, meetings, proofreading, editing, phone-calling, and even fun-having, I am comfortable allowing for interruptions. Given that which fills my life, my wee hours are best suited for the kind of writing that warrants its own, protected, space and time.

The term “writer’s block” should be stricken from the universe as a term. Composing is a multifaceted activity, one which requires the use of thinking-muscles, and one must figure out how to use those muscles in comfortable, useful ways. It troubles me to hear young composers express fear that creative thinking-muscles might atrophy. They get this notion from someone somewhere, and it can be paralyzing. In addition, telling a young composer they should write every day for at least an hour, and leaving it at that, can be equally paralyzing.

What is writing time, and how does one fill it? If not feeling particularly note-y or conceptual-y, take a walk for twenty minutes and think about titles. This is writing. Have a pile of empty bars waiting to become a contrasting section? Hit a coffee shop for an hour and make a list of adjectives describing how it can, or cannot, sound. This is writing. If staring at the blank page when starting a piece, unsure of what to do: relax, settle in some place comfortable, and simply imagine what it can be, how it can sound. Over and over, imagine it, without putting anything on a page. This is writing. An afternoon roaming a museum pondering visual likes and dislikes: this is writing. Spending fifteen minutes on a bus considering what piece one would write if one could write anything for any forces: writing.

Mentors, friends, and books suggested some of the above to me when I was a student, yet none put it like so: Make time for your writing; vehemently protect it; set a timer if it helps; find or create spaces solely devoted to writing; pay attention to how your writing sensibilities change, and respond to them; during your writing time you are available only to your creativity. P.S. Turn off your phone.

Holy smokes the world provides a lot of input. In some ways it is super cool. Our ability to rapidly disseminate information is mind-blowing, and can be useful. I love reading composers’ blogs, many of which explore our efforts to “filter out the noise” as we navigate the layers filling our different-busy schedules. The most poignant shift in my daily composer-clock ticked into place in 2005 with the birth of my son. Turn-on-a-dime time, people. Baby asleep = hurry up and write / Baby awake = stop writing. While I have little memory of choosing the notes I chose for the first two years of my son’s life, it was a tremendously informative time in shaping how I write now. Time to write = writing time. Period. I am still working on filtering out the noise during non-writing times; yet I am grateful that at least I am aware when the noise is fading in.

I wrote my first music at my grandparents’ Dune Acres house. We visited there most summers of my childhood. When the weather held, we spent long lazy mornings at the lake. After lunch, while others napped, I would sneak outside to my secret side patio. I made up songs, sang with the crickets, waves, and trees. It was the beginnings of my precious, protected, space and time with my music. Sometimes, I went out alone in the rain.

***
Kristin Kuster

Composer Kristin Kuster “writes commandingly for the orchestra,” and her music “has an invitingly tart edge” (The New York Times). Kuster’s music takes inspiration from architectural space, the weather, and mythology. Recent CD releases include Two Jades with violinist Xiang Gao and the UM Symphony Band, and the title work on the PRISM Saxophone Quartet’s New Dynamic Records CD Breath Beneath. Kuster’s music has received support from such organizations as the American Academy of Arts and Letters, the Sons of Norway, American Composers Orchestra, the League of American Orchestras, Meet The Composer, the Jerome Foundation, the American Composers Forum, American Opera Projects, the National Flute Association, and the Argosy Foundation. Born in 1973, Kuster grew up in Boulder, Colorado. She earned her Doctor of Musical Arts from the University of Michigan, where she now serves as Assistant Professor of Composition.

The Plight of the Page Turner

One of the running gags in my life (there are several) is the way my personal skill set has always expanded in the direction of impending obsolescence. When I was in high school, I learned how to edit audio and video—on tape. I mastered the idiosyncrasies of the IBM Selectric 3 typewriter. (Honestly, I still miss it.) In college, I staved off more than one eviction notice by scrounging opportunities for copying out parts from scores, by hand. I found myself writing newspaper criticism just in time to see it run alongside a spate of stories predicting the death of newspapers. (I have a book coming out in November; given my track record, I’m half expecting the publishing industry to vanish by Hanukkah.)

Girl at piano

Any time now…

There’s one other skill I developed, one I actually took an odd amount of satisfaction in: turning pages. If you go to classical concerts, you see people turning pages all the time, for pianists, or organists, or, occasionally, other instrumentalists whose hands are too busy to advance themselves to the next page. Turning pages might seem like an almost desultorily simple task. It is not. It is a skill, and a surprisingly delicate one at that.

Still, it’s a skill that one acquires mostly by happenstance. I have both seen a movie (La tourneuse de pages, a 2006 thriller directed by Denis Dercourt) and read a book (The Page Turner, by David Leavitt, from 1998) that, for all their respective charms, posit the somewhat fictional notion of page turners who develop close, lasting relationships—professional and otherwise—with those they turn for. Page turning, at least in my experience, is far more likely to be a last-minute consideration, a straw drawn by the member of the stage crew with the best reading skills, or the best temporary rapport with the pianist, or (and I have seen this too many times for it to be a coincidence, I am sure) the best dress, or the one who, like me, actually and oddly enjoys it. But, however much of an afterthought it can be, it is, at least, something that has been a part of musical performance for as long as there has been notation.

I give it ten more years.

*

Page turning is one of those things that only acquires dramatic import in inverse proportion to how well it’s done. Maybe it’s the perverse pride I took in the task, but my attention is invariably redirected whenever a page turner is ill at ease, or out of sync with the pianist, or constantly playing a game of chicken with the high-wire combination of a recalcitrant binding and a drafty hall, pages teetering on the edge of turning themselves back before being hastily slapped back into place. (Boston’s Jordan Hall, notoriously breezy onstage, tends to witness instances of the latter at a fairly steady rate.) My own page-turning history has its less distinguished moments—I was once called in to turn pages for a concert featuring Peter Serkin and the Guarneri Quartet, touring with a brand new Hans Werner Henze quintet and a venerable Dvořák counterpart. Serkin was playing the Henze off a miniature score, as I remember, which presented its own challenges; they proved trivial in comparison with the Dvořák, Serkin’s copy of which had seen such wear that the binding actually split in the midst of one page turn, causing half the book to slip into his lap in the middle of the performance. Serkin merely played on, serene and imperturbable.

page turn

That sort of possibility for disaster always made me mildly amazed that better systems never arose. The Chicago-based pianist and composer George Flynn came up with a scheme in which he’d copy his formidably demanding scores onto large, loose leaves, then arrange them on the piano in an alternating pattern such that he could be reading one leaf while the page turner removed another. Such ingenuity is rare, though. At last month’s Burr Van Nostrand concert, there was a page turner faced with manipulating a score so cumbersomely large that, after a while, I simply began to regard his efforts as a layer of theatrical counterpoint.

Actually, given how much of the rest of the peripheral choreography of classical music performance has become fodder for avant-garde shenanigans, it’s a little surprising that there aren’t more pieces that deliberately rope the odd ritual of page turning into their provocation. Still, there are a few. Pauline Oliveros, in 1961, wrote a Trio for Flute, Piano, and Page Turner that casts the latter as something between an organ assistant and a doppelgänger, not only manning the score, but also holding down piano keys for resonance, reaching into the instrument to enable harmonics and sound-altering preparations, and even changing places with the pianist at one point. (Another Oliveros piece, Aeolian Partitions, gives similar prominence to the page turner.) In the coda of Gerard Grisey’s 1975 Partiels (part of the large cycle Les espaces acoustiques), the piece’s long-range exploration of musical tone is punctuated by a brief exploration of the more plebeian sounds of performance that surround it; the rustling and crumpling of the players’ sheet music plays a prominent role. It’s a nifty gambit—musically colonizing the performance space surrounding the music, an invasion made easier by our custom of pretending that space isn’t there.

*

Music history is progressive, though not in the immediately obvious way, the notion of styles superseding each other that held sway throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries—that illusion has been run over by the continuing, persistent availability, via recording and performance, of pretty much the entirety of a millennium’s worth of repertoire. But recording and the evolution of live performance point towards music history’s real inexorable advance: technology. Instruments get louder; ranges (pitch and dynamic) get wider; notation gets more intricate and detailed; distribution gets easier and faster. And at every turn, performance and compositional practices change to take due advantage.

Steel engraving of composer Mozart and Beethoven from 1882

Will the advance of technology stay the human page turner’s hand?

Not that this is necessarily a tale of innovation and obsolescence, either—musicians have always had a healthy appetite for resurrecting the past, and with ever-increasing notions of fidelity. Perhaps in response to the sheer pace of technological advance it created, the 20th century also brought us the period-instrument movement, actually endeavoring to recreate and remaster older technologies of equipment and technique. (This is not limited to classical music. A couple weeks ago, I was shopping around for a guitar amplifier, and thus found myself ruefully and hopelessly considering the five-figure premium on, say, a 1958 Fender Twin.) But there is a deliberate element to such fidelity: eschewing what the current era takes for granted, making the effort to seek out and master older iterations of technology, and making that endeavor a central feature of performance practice—and, to be sure, marketing.

*

Like I said, ten years. Pretty soon, tablet computers, iPads and their ilk, are going to be so powerful and so cheap, and the digitization of libraries so far along, that carrying an entire collection of sheet music on a single, slim machine—one that will flip from page to page via a tap on the screen, or a foot pedal, or just by electronically processing its way through the score in time with the performer—will be the unremarkable norm. And the page turner will be obsolete.

Except in those cases where they won’t—in performances of those few pieces that make the physical, paper score and/or its unnoticed steward a specified part of the piece. Once scores go fully electronic—and they will—performances of pieces like Grisey’s Partiels or Oliveros’s Trio will become, in a way, period-practice affairs, necessitating that the performers seek out paper scores and the requisite personnel to manipulate them. As the historically informed movement works ever forward in history, one will perhaps see the return of paper scores as a deliberate choice, finding another layer of period-accurate theatre in the physical presence of the graphic efforts of Stockhausen, or Crumb, or Cage, or even just in the subtle gravity of that extra person on stage, lurking in the background, embodying equal parts calm and risk.

And that has gotten me thinking. For a good while now, the always-vague term “new music” has been applied with increasing tension to both that music that is actually, chronologically new, and that body of post-World War II modern and post-modern music for which its “newness”—its stylistic discrepancy from the canonic classical music that, with the advent of recording, continued to curiously hang around the culture—was its most prominent characteristic. Until I considered the prospect of its demise, I never considered that physical scores and the accompanying page turner could be something as important as an historical boundary. But maybe that’s what will prove to be the dividing line between new music and “new music.” Maybe this is one of those rare occasions when a single technological shift can plausibly represent a shift of historical ground. Given how hard it usually is to pin down such things, it wouldn’t surprise me that such a boundary would be, in the end, paper-thin.

Anthologies and the Problem of Pre-Fab Teaching

booksIt’s easy to see anthologizing as the first step on the road to canonization. When a contemporary piece is placed in a collection of the type to which Rob Deemer has by now famously contributed, it gets transmitted as a stable, printed score, and finds itself positioned adjacent to music that traditionally qualifies as monumental—large-scale, orchestral, German—and at the end of a perceived narrative of progress, decadence, decay (and rebirth?). It becomes a Work, and might as well be stamped with a morose likeness of Beethoven and brushed with a patina of dust and sauerkraut.

The anthology, in this view, is deeply problematic, and much of the criticism of Rob’s choices operates from this position. Those who remark on the dearth of European composers on his list, for instance, project a sense of indignation that a whole category of artists might not be considered worthy of immortalizing. Those who complain about the lack of improvised music (more on that below) and examples of other techniques betray a concern that nonstandard creative approaches will not be recognized as skillful.

More problematic than the anthology, in my view, is what this kind of critique assumes about the activity of history and theory pedagogy. The unarticulated assumption is that the anthology will be used in the service of a narrative of great works and geniuses, a kind of chronological tour of the Classical Music Hall of Fame, and that those contained inside the paper walls are proven masters, while those without aren’t worthy of attention.

One way to soothe the outrage is to recognize another function of the anthology, to view it as an aid to a particular type of teaching: as an outline of a context-driven narrative. What if we take anthologies as the beginning of discussions, not the ending? I don’t mean, exclusively, the kinds of discussions happening on NewMusicBox; I mean discussions in the classroom. Anthologies provide examples of trends, and provide students—and, more importantly, educators—with starting points on various topics. They will always be inadequate representations of musical praxis, and their inadequacy should be a regular source of conversation: Why does the collection contain so few women composers? So few non-European composers? Why isn’t there more organ repertoire? More saxophone repertoire? More kazoo music? Why is there only German art song? Why is there so little popular music? So little non-Western music? Some of these questions are easier to answer than others, but they—and many more—are all worth articulating in the classroom. Moreover, I venture to guess that every anthology compiler wishes desperately for this type of inquiry to take place.

card catalogThis is the crucial connection between anthologies and another of the controversial topics explored in previous NewMusicBox columns (Rob’s included): when probing questions are not encouraged, those types of voices that are typically absent from the telling of history—the non-male, non-European, queer, or generally unprivileged—will only continue to be absent. The more we teach history and theory as a study of great musical works and discrete moments of genius, the less satisfied those who raised objections to Rob’s post will be, and the more we all stand to lose.

Take the complaint about the lack of improvised music among Rob’s choices. This is a fair criticism, particularly as improvisation has a long history. In fact, it’s fair to say that, in the very long tradition of social music-making, strict notation is the exception. Yet, ironically, examples of improvised practices do not often grace the pages of anthologies, in part because of logistical difficulties. Though a significant part of Mozart’s and Bach’s musical activity, for instance, we can only guess at the exact form of each composer’s on-the-spot larger-scale creations. Furthermore, when printed in an anthology, even the music that would have been improvised, like a cadenza or operatic embellishment, ends up looking fixed, for the anthology, in subsuming everything under one heading, problematically suggests that all music approaches the printed page in the same way.

If a history teacher doesn’t take the trouble to situate works in the context of the performance practices, institutions, nations or courts with which they are associated, students are deprived not only of broad cultural knowledge, but of an opportunity to be informed about non-musical reasons for certain parameters of musical style. (An example might be John Cage’s famous anecdote about the reasons behind the piano preparations in Bacchanale.)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but to teach only the composers discussed in someone else’s textbook, chosen by someone else’s narrative, would surely be an impoverished and lazy approach to pedagogy; anyone who knows enough to run a history or theory course knows more repertoire than that which is contained in an anthology, and could formulate valid objections to the contents of any textbook.

It has been articulated in the comments to Rob’s piece, but it’s worth saying again: bravo to Mark Evan Bonds for attempting to keep the anthology so current, and bravo to Rob for being so open about the reasons for his choices. It’s up to the rest of us to do the real work: to place these pieces in context, and make our complaints into curricula.

Art and Democracy: The NEA, Kickstarter, and Creativity in America

two roadsEvery once in a blue moon, an arts policy story breaks into the mainstream media—and as with most poorly understood subjects, it’s usually for some profoundly stupid reason. The news that the crowdfunding platform Kickstarter anticipates distributing more money this year than the National Endowment for the Arts was no exception.[1] The story, prompted by a February 24 interview of Kickstarter co-founder Yancey Strickler by Talking Points Memo’s Carl Franzen, led to a flurry of content-free online chatter on well-trafficked channels with frothy headlines like “Could Kickstarter Replace the NEA?” and “Kickstarter Kicks the NEA’s Butt in Arts Funding.”

It’s worth noting that neither Strickler himself nor Franzen’s analysis suggested that Kickstarter was somehow in opposition to the NEA—indeed, Strickler went out of his way to emphasize that he has mixed feelings about the growth of his startup relative to the nation’s second-largest arts funder.[2] But not surprisingly, that was the direction the conversation immediately went. In a way, I can sympathize with the enthusiasm for this easy, attention-grabbing narrative: Kickstarter, after all, has been extraordinarily successful in positioning itself as the hot new tech tool that everyone’s talking about, the creative entrepreneur’s best friend, in more or less direct contrast to the NEA’s comparatively stodgy, bureaucratic image. The comparison, furthermore, is like catnip to conservative and libertarian opponents of federal arts funding, who see the numbers as justification for the argument that their taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to support art that they don’t directly endorse. Just as inexperienced artists sometimes mistakenly believe that Kickstarter is going to solve all of their fundraising problems with nary a lifted finger in sight, commentators who have more interest than background in the arts can easily fall into the trap of seeing Kickstarter as “the answer” to United States arts policy.

Seductive as it is, that narrative ignores a number of pertinent facts about the nature of both Kickstarter itself and the arts funding ecosystem in our country. Crucially, it misses the forest for the trees by incorrectly assuming that the NEA is one of the primary means by which our country funds the nonprofit arts sector, following the model embraced by governments in Europe and elsewhere. In reality, Kickstarter and the NEA combined comprise less than 0.5% of the total dollars arts organizations raise and spend annually. The NEA isn’t even the largest line item in the federal budget devoted to arts and culture—that honor goes to the Smithsonian Institution, with an appropriation from Uncle Sam exceeding that of the NEA’s by a factor of five. Instead, nonprofit arts organizations raise nearly half of their revenue from earned sources such as ticket sales and tuition fees, with the bulk of the remainder coming from individual donations (yes, people gave money to the arts before Kickstarter) and foundation grants.

Graph from the NEA's "How the United States Funds the Arts" report

Graph from the NEA’s “How the United States Funds the Arts” report

Moreover, as author and technologist Clay Johnson points out, the NEA and Kickstarter are fundamentally different beasts: the NEA is a mission-centric public agency intentionally focusing its resources in certain directions to attain specific goals, whereas the strings-attached donations that take place on Kickstarter arguably have more in common with purchases of goods and services than with grants. A solid quarter of Kickstarter’s distributions to date have gone toward projects that fall outside of the scope of what the NEA has traditionally supported, such as new product design and commercial entertainment (high-profile projects have included an iPhone dock, an iPod Nano watch, and a movie by Tom Hanks’s son). Indeed, to say that Kickstarter “funds” the arts at all seems an exaggeration; Kickstarter is a for-profit technology platform that takes a 8-10% cut (counting credit card and transaction fees) from the donations that come through its system, money that is currently being used to grow the company and will one day undoubtedly make its founders very, very rich. Saying that Kickstarter should replace the NEA is rather like saying we don’t need libraries anymore because we have Amazon.com.

*

It’s interesting to me that, in contrast to the apparently exciting (for some) notion of Kickstarter supplanting the NEA, no one has called for the reverse—that is, for the NEA to replace Kickstarter, or at least for Kickstarter to become more like the NEA. That suggests the NEA has a bit of an image problem relative to the darlings of the crowdfunding world. Why might that be? I suspect a big reason is the complex role the NEA plays in United States arts policy, one that is frequently at odds with the expectations placed upon it by liberals and conservatives alike.

Following the first meeting of the National Council on the Arts (the body that oversees the National Endowment for the Arts) in 1965, the Council released a statement that read, in part, “…The Council cannot create artists, but it is passionately dedicated to creating a climate in which art and the artist shall flourish.” That sentence neatly encapsulates the indirect role that the NEA must play in our cultural ecosystem due to its small size. United States citizens can be forgiven, I suppose, for thinking that the role of a federal agency called the “National Endowment for the Arts” is to support artists directly in the creation and production of art. But these days, aside from a handful of literature fellowships, it’s not—any more than the role of the Federal Highway Administration is to make and drive cars. Rather, the function of both agencies is to create and maintain a strong infrastructure to serve their respective constituencies.

Money Trees

One could make an argument that the NEA isn’t so different from Kickstarter in one key respect: neither entity really gives away its own money. In the NEA’s case, that money is ours, the taxpayers’, and just like Kickstarter it takes a cut of the pie for itself: more than 20% of the budget goes toward operating expenses or program support efforts rather than grants. But taxpayers get at least two things for their overhead dollars that their Kickstarter patron and customer counterparts don’t: curation[3] and leadership. The first is becoming increasingly central for the arts field as a whole, as the number of new and growing creative enterprises threatens to overwhelm an already crowded market. Rather than allocate its dollars to grant applicants via some automated process, the NEA invests considerable time in assembling peer review panels to assess each project’s merits and goals in relation to its strategic objectives (creating excellent art, engaging the public, and promoting public knowledge and understanding about the arts). Importantly, as a government entity with no obligation to consider the commercial potential of the projects it supports, the NEA is free to prioritize art that would otherwise fall through the cracks—either because of what it is, who’s making it, or where it’s happening. This freedom is what allows the NEA and other mission-oriented funders to create a subsidy-driven artistic marketplace to serve alongside the profit-driven commercial marketplace.

In short, by making strong, centralized, and values-based curatorial choices, the NEA has the capacity to exercise leadership. And leadership is the means by which the NEA can be relevant despite its modest budget as the most visible national government body supporting the arts. The Endowment has focused a singular attention during Chairman Rocco Landesman’s tenure on setting national priorities and forming partnerships and coalitions around them, resulting most obviously in a raft of new creative placemaking initiatives casting the arts as engines of economic redevelopment in urban and rural centers across the United States. The NEA has also put new energy and resources into its research activities, using its power as a convener to standardize and update methodologies and form liaisons with other branches of government.

Finally, there is one important respect in which the NEA leads by…well…following. Forty percent of the Endowment’s grant dollars go not to organizations or artists directly, but to arts councils via state and local partnerships. This arrangement is part of a decentralization strategy that is aimed at getting national dollars for arts access to every corner of the country. While some commentators feel that the NEA could do more to support arts access in rural areas and away from the coasts, the Endowment is without question a bigger boon to these regions than Kickstarter, whose marketplace-based model (mirroring the economy more generally) inherently privileges geographic clusters.

*

Right now, it’s not clear that Kickstarter is doing much more than offering a streamlined process for donations that would probably have happened anyway. Aside from a handful of lucky campaigns that “go viral,” anecdotal reports suggest that the vast majority of donors to a typical project are previously known to the recipient. That means that whatever biases and privileges exist in the real world also exist on Kickstarter. Artist-entrepreneurs who have either ready access to networks of family and friends with money or an already-existing fan base will have a noticeable leg up on those who are just starting out or paid their own way in college. In fact, Kickstarter’s all-or-nothing campaign model may exacerbate these inequities, by increasing the risk that those who begin with less will lose the benefits of all their hard work—a fate that befell more than half of all campaigns launched on the site last year.

Given all the above, it may seem ironic that it is Kickstarter that has seized the mantle of democratizing access to the arts in the public imagination, rather than the NEA. A closer examination, however, quickly reveals why. In recent years, the NEA has focused on arts access from the perspective of the audience, particularly through geographic reach. The Endowment publishes national studies on arts participation twice a decade, supports touring programs through its network of regional partners, and frequently supports established organizations that are capable of bringing in large crowds consistently. But these measures are often not so friendly to the creator. The NEA’s focus on pre-existing institutions, its requirement that applicants hold tax-exempt status, and its extensive application requirements and lengthy review process all erect barriers to participation no less formidable than those that face artist-entrepreneurs who come to Kickstarter without access to a video camera. The NEA is simply not set up to provide seed funding of any kind, relying on partners, grantees, and the private sector to fulfill that function instead. By contrast, Kickstarter allows pretty much anyone to sign up and start soliciting in a jiffy, and campaign timelines are purposefully kept short to allow for nearly immediate results. In short, if one fits the profile of an ideal Kickstarter project, that platform offers an infinitely more attractive vehicle for obtaining funding than the NEA.

*

Precisely because the marketplace for individual giving is so much larger than the capacity for government support, Kickstarter has the potential to deliver a transformative impact on the arts sector by cultivating more and better donors to the arts. (Kickstarter isn’t the only platform of its kind, of course, nor is it even the first. My employer, Fractured Atlas, partners with two of Kickstarter’s competitors, IndieGoGo and RocketHub, and many other online fundraising platforms cover the arts and beyond, including USA Projects, Power2Give, and ArtSpire. But Kickstarter’s large customer base and obvious cachet with the technology community currently put it in the best position to achieve what I suggest here.) Kickstarter has already taken a number of steps to encourage “browsers”—people who donate to projects to which they have no personal connection. The company offers a weekly newsletter featuring projects that catch the program team’s eye, and regularly highlights selected campaigns on its blog and other social media. A “Discover Great Projects” section of the website offers staff picks, and curated pages increase the number of voices in the mix. Strickler’s comments on a year-in-review thread from earlier this year also indicate that Kickstarter is working on ways to make it easier to find projects in close geographic proximity to you.

concert crowd

But Kickstarter could do more. For as much time as it puts into selecting projects to highlight, many, many more will pass unnoticed, a trend that will only worsen as the platform becomes more popular.  By engaging its audience directly in the curation of its projects, perhaps through some kind of guided crowdsourcing process, Kickstarter would expose more of the “long tail” of its project pool to potential review by strangers. That would allow projects that originate from underserved communities and don’t already come in with strong connections to donors a more realistic shot at reaching their campaign goals. Kickstarter’s broad conception of creativity, one that reaches beyond the arts to video games, product design, and even social innovation, holds enormous promise for encouraging the cross-pollination of donors across various fields, perhaps even training a new generation of tech-savvy arts patrons and board members. A robust recommendation engine and more project discovery tools will likely be needed, however, to turn all of those one-time supporters doing a friend a favor into ongoing mini-Medicis (or should we say Bloombergs?) providing a regular stream of dollars to projects and artists they discover for the first time through Kickstarter. Were that vision realized, the notion of Kickstarter as a “funder” of the arts would not seem nearly so far-fetched.

*

I’ve been pretty harsh on the “could Kickstarter replace the NEA” meme, on the logic that (a) it’s not going to happen and (b) even if it did, it would have little practical impact because of the relatively small dollar amounts involved. Yet the NEA/Kickstarter cage-match narrative compels because it gets at a central debate in American society: the value of shaping markets through planning and policy versus letting them run free. While Kickstarter does not prioritize, and therefore is less successful at, distributing its funds in a way that acknowledges historical inequities and the biases of capitalism, in other respects it does represent a more accessible vision of the arts in America consistent with the Pro-Am Revolution. It is this commitment to lowering the barriers to entry that has made Kickstarter so popular with the media and, in particular, with the innovation-obsessed technology community. And though the NEA theoretically should be able to democratize access to the arts more effectively than a for-profit entity like Kickstarter, for creators, accessing the Endowment—with all of its rules and structure—simply requires a different kind of privilege.

For these reasons, it’s not that hard to imagine Kickstarter and the NEA learning from each other. Though Kickstarter’s mission is not to serve the arts community per se, it would be a shame to see it pass up the huge opportunity in front of it to do just that by flexing more curatorial leadership and empowering its audience to do the same. Meanwhile, crowdfunding’s open-access, instant-gratification model offers an important challenge to the Endowment as it continues to wrestle with how it can best do its job on pennies per capita. If democratizing access to the arts means anything at all, it must include not just who gets to see the artist but also who gets to be the artist. And on that last score, both institutions have a ways yet to go.

**


1. I’m not going to waste time crafting the world’s seven gazillionth article describing Kickstarter here. If you’re not familiar with it, Anastasia Tsioulcas’s blog post offers a good introduction from a classical music perspective.


2. Depending on the definition used, the NEA is either neck-and-neck with or far behind the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs in money provided to the arts annually.


3. Kickstarter does “curate” its projects in the sense that they must meet basic eligibility requirements in order to get listed, but the review and due diligence process is far less extensive than the NEA’s.

***

Ian Moss
As research director for Fractured Atlas, Ian David Moss helps funders, government agencies, and others support the field more effectively by harnessing the power of data to drive informed decision-making. Ian designed and leads implementation of Fractured Atlas’s pioneering cultural asset mapping software, Archipelago, which aggregates and visualizes information about creative activities in a particular geography in order to better illuminate who’s making art, who’s engaging with it, where it’s happening, and how it’s made possible. Since 2007, he has also been editor of Createquity, a highly acclaimed arts policy blog read regularly by more than 2,000 arts managers and enthusiasts around the world. Previously, he was development manager for the American Music Center and founded two first-of-their-kind performing ensembles: a hybrid electric chamber group/experimental rock band and a choral collective devoted to the music of the past 25 years. He holds BA and MBA degrees from Yale University.

The ‘Woman Composer’ is Dead

Hildegard

It’s been nearly a millenium since Hildegard von Bingen composed music. Aren’t we finally past the era when it was unusual to be a “woman composer”? (Image from the Rupertsberger Codex c.1180)

The principle of utu dharma, followed by ancient mystics, is summarized in the following statement: one side can only go so far before it becomes its opposite. To my way of thinking, this idea is quite pertinent to this very specific history, that of the ‘woman composer.’

To fully understand the term ‘woman composer’ and all of the historical baggage associated with it, it’s important to be aware of hundreds of years of challenges met and overcome.  Three years of research from 2007-2010 taught me that the main challenges to women’s authorship were the social structures of historical times, which manifested in the very personal, internal conflicts of individuals. The private writings of Clara Schumann, Julie Candeille (a composer who in 1795 had 154 performances of an opera she composed, and who was greatly scrutinized because of it), and Corona Schröter, among many others, poignantly disclose these conflicts. To give you a snapshot from 18th-century thought, here is Schröter in her own words (1786):

I have had to overcome much hesitation before I seriously made the decision to publish a collection of short poems that I have provided with melodies. A certain feeling towards propriety and morality is stamped upon our sex, which does not allow us to appear alone in public, and without an escort: Thus, how can I otherwise present this, my musical work to the public, than with timidity? For the complimentary opinions and the encouragement of a few persons…can easily be biased out of pity.[1]

In the 19th century, Clara Schumann wrote this in her diary (1839):

I once thought that I possessed creative talent, but I have given up this idea; a woman must not desire to compose—not one has been able to do it, and why should I expect to? It would be arrogance, though indeed, my father led me into it in earlier days.[2]

Both of these are examples of the inner conflicts which reflect broader social struggles of the times. Schröter’s time period was bound by social propriety, one that considered it offensively bold for a woman to speak her thoughts outright, much less put them in print—a format that was then thought of as eternal. You can follow the implications therein. Schumann’s conflict, which undoubtedly echoes similar social constraints, incorporates self-criticism and rationalization (conflicts which also appear as far back as the writings of Hildegard). I offer these brief, yet specific examples to give a small cross-section of scope, history, and of the burden associated with the term ‘woman composer.’

Examining this subject can take you even farther back in history. Most fascinating to me is the idea that social, religious, and scientific philosophies upheld over time, in an effort to maintain a kind of social order, did not keep women from authorship, quite the contrary. There were many women who broke through constraints and forged ahead (sometimes literally endangering their own lives) because they felt they had something to say, and because they believed, deep down, in their own ability (even if they had to deny it with their own pens). As I researched this subject, I gained a more complete picture of the history as well as a strong aversion to the term ‘woman composer.’ Although it may be lost on a younger generation, its very use implies that the corresponding body of work is of a lesser quality; in effect, the term renders it a sub-group.

The middle part of the 20th century was a tumultuous and transitional time. As such, the term ‘woman composer’ may have been beneficial, if only to assert the presence of quality authors who were women, to wave a flag on behalf of equality, and to have a specific term to identify a cause. As Western culture seriously struggled to transcend issues of race and gender, perhaps the label was needed for a time.

To take a phrase from Dame Ethel Smyth, “if you put on your binoculars and sweep across the landscape,” things are quite a bit different now. We’ve come a long way since these earlier centuries when the act of women’s authorship (both literary and musical) had to be self-excused and rationalized. We’ve come a long way since the time when the act of composing was caught up in political causes defined by gender. Many battles, seen and un-seen, were fought on behalf of gender equality. What reward did those challenges reap for the artistic pursuits of today’s composers? A relative healthy lack of self-awareness with regard to gender. There is no shortage of new music composers, no shortage of excellent ones, and no shortage of women. The fact the Rob Deemer could easily come up with a list of 202 living women in the field is evidence of that. A mere 20 years ago, that list would have been much smaller.

It’s important to be aware of the history, so we can understand that the term ‘woman composer’ is nothing more than the residue of struggles past, persisting like a bad habit.

My biggest concern, however, about the resurgence of this whole subject of late, is the issue of programming. I’m sympathetic to the fact that International Women’s Day may have given understandable attention to, and examination of the issue across the world and even in our field, but I feel compelled to offer a different perspective than those previously expressed on NewMusicBox.

If the leading new music ensembles today are programming 8-22% composers of the female sex (as David Smooke’s pie charts maintain), I simply must point out that 15 years ago this number would probably have been 0-3%. But most importantly, I do not accept, and do not believe, that analyzing programming data is the way to measure success of composers in this field. Perhaps a better way is to ask young composers if they feel gender is an obstacle in their personal quest to make art. No doubt you will be greeted with total confusion and a look that betrays the thought, “Does not compute.” Perhaps an even better way to measure success would be to notice how many composers today have this healthy lack of self-awareness I mentioned above. It pains me to think that we are “celebrating” composers of the female sex by criticizing ensembles (who are supporting a diverse body of excellent works) for not programming enough of them. These ensembles are surely programming music they find compelling. I would hope they are not basing their programming choices on gender, but rather on excellence.

As I wrote in my response to Deemer’s article, it’s commendable to be aware of and in support of all composers striving to make art, but our first responsibility is to identify and program music that is excellent—which of course has nothing to do with gender. I would hate to think that my work had been programmed simply because I’m a woman—and in fact, I’ve declined concert and recording opportunities that were gender-based.

It would be a great detriment to the field if suddenly, in the 21st century, when we’ve largely transcended the issue of gender, to start focusing on it again. Neither art nor artist is served by segregation—even if it’s well intended. The moment we begin programming based on gender, instead of excellence, is the moment we begin to go backwards. I would encourage administrators, ensembles, and concert producers to examine a diverse body of new works and program only those that speak to you and those that you find to be of the highest quality. Let those qualifications be the paradigm, and an excellent and diverse group of composers will surely continue to rise to the surface.

It’s wonderful to celebrate the composers of our time, but lets do it by freeing them from our gender-burdened past. If we do this, then what happens to the ‘woman composer’? Well, we bury her. She is, after all, quite dead.

Who killed her?

Ellen Taaffe Zwilich, Shulamit Ran, Jennifer Higdon, and Melinda Wagner did when they won the Pulitzer Prize for Music Composition; Kaija Saariaho, Jennifer Higdon, and Unsuk Chin did when they were among the first to be commissioned by major opera companies; Chen Yi also did when she received the Charles Ives Living Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters; Joan Tower, Libby Larsen, Augusta Read Thomas, Jennifer Higdon, and Anna Clyne did when they became composers-in-residence for three of our country’s leading orchestras; Jennifer Higdon and Joan Tower did by winning Grammy Awards for Classical Composition (to trumpet only a small few of the most recognizable names and honors); and so too did all of the young composers who have poured into this field by way of undergraduate and graduate programs throughout the last forty years or so. If accomplishment is evidence of ability, then the proof is in the pudding.

The ‘woman composer’ opened doors for all of us—and we have many musicians and administrators to thank for this. But it was in the late 20th century that this label reached its most potent point and even then it was just short of becoming offensive. Before this label begins to darken our doors, which is the opposite of its intended purpose, let’s let the ‘woman composer’ rest in peace.

I know I’m only one person, but to me, in light of all of these things and in the context of a very long history, it is highly insulting to classify a composer by gender because it perpetuates the myth of a sub-group.  It’s even further insulting to imply that our ensembles have made, or should make, programming choices based on gender.

*

[1] Marcia J. Citron, “Corona Schröter: Singer, Composer, Actress,” Music and Letters, Vol. 61 No. 1 (January, 1980), 21.


[2] Berthold Litzmann, Clara Schumann: An Artist’s Life Based on Material Found in Diaries and Letters, trans. Grace E. Hadow, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1913), Vol. 1 241-244, quoted in Carol Neuls-Bates, ed., Women in Music: An Anthology of Source Readings from the Middle Ages to the Present (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1996), 154.

***

Amy Beth Kirsten

Amy Beth Kirsten – Copyright 2012 J Henry Fair

Amy Beth Kirsten, one of this year’s Guggenheim Fellows in music composition, is currently composing a forty-five minute chamber opera—without singers—for the 2012 Grammy-winning ensemble eighth blackbird. The work, about a diabolical and murderous Harlequin back from the underworld to reclaim his theatrical throne, will be choreographed and directed by Martha Clarke for its 2013 premier. In recent years, Kirsten’s work has been recognized by the American Composers Orchestra, The MAP Fund, ASCAP, the Fromm Foundation at Harvard University, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the state of Connecticut—where she now lives. Before coming to the East Coast to attend Peabody Conservatory, she was a singer-songwriter for ten years in the Chicago area and played at many of the city’s smallest, but mightiest, nightclubs. Since then she has written music for orchestra, chamber ensemble, opera, and for solo instruments. She currently teaches music composition at the HighSCORE summer music festival in Pavia, Italy. Upcoming projects include a work for solo cello commissioned by Jeffrey Zeigler of Kronos Quartet.

Using YouTube to Find a Pianist

David Lang

David Lang. Photo © Peter Serling, 2009

[Ed. Note: On November 15, composer David Lang launched a rather unusual piano competition that was specifically designed to take advantage the broad connectivity the internet offers. Through the services of the publisher who distributes his music, G. Schirmer, Lang made available, without charge, a downloadable score for his solo piano composition wed. Pianists were instructed to learn the piece and post their performances of it to YouTube until December 31, 2011, tagging their videos with the phrase “David Lang Piano Competition 2011,” to ensure their performances could be easily found. In the beginning of the new year, a group of pianists—including Andrew Zolinsky, who recorded the piece on the Cantaloupe CD this was written by hand—will judge all of the submissions and the winner they select will be flown from wherever in the world he or she resides to New York City to perform wed, as well as to premiere (alongside Andrew Zolinsky) a brand new Lang piano 4-hand piece at Le Poisson Rouge on May 6, 2012. (The winner will also be put up for two nights in a hotel and receive a small honorarium.) With only a week left to enter the competition, we thought we’d check in with David Lang to find out how things are going.—FJO/MS]

The competition has been going very well so far. We have had a few hundred pianists from around the world download the music, and we expect that many of them will post videos of them playing it. I have been really grateful that most of the people I have heard from have been amused by it. It is hard to tell in advance sometimes if something new will turn out to be a good idea or a bad one, which might be a good reason to do it by itself.

One little change happened in the middle that I thought was interesting. Since I will bring the winner to New York, I had originally opened the competition only to people in countries from which you could get a visa to come to the United States. After some blog postings and some emails from disappointed Iranian musicians, I decided to open it up to everyone in the world, and we will deal with the visa things when we have to. It was great to be reminded that even simple things we do here may have deeper political meanings, and that music’s goal should be to connect people and not divide them. And it was particularly amazing to discover—duh!—that the internet works, and messages like this one get read and felt all around the world.

The really exciting thing about this competition to me is thinking that I am going to find out about and meet a bunch of new and interesting musicians. I like musicians. I have a lot of friends who are musicians, and I know and like a lot of musicians already. But I have room to know and like many more!

When I started working on the CD [this was written by hand] I was thinking about how piano music is different from other music. I love big, lush orchestral pieces, but I don’t have an orchestra in my apartment. I do have a piano, though, and I know I am not alone. And I have to say, I really like the CD and I think Andrew plays beautifully, in a very plainspoken manner. I thought the competition might help people find this CD and like it.

You can look and listen to all of the submissions that have been posted so far at
this page. Here is one of them…

With Every Christmas Card I Write

In general, when you hear a physicist invoke the uncertainty principle, keep a hand on your wallet.

—David Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles

It is a pleasant irony that, the other day, as I was in a coffee-purveying establishment reading the latest round of recording-industry shills going on about how an even more draconian copyright regime is necessary to ensure creativity and innovation, I happened to hear this:

It’s part of this year’s crop of holiday releases, Michael Bublé and Shania Twain duetting on a version of “White Christmas” that is a near note-for-note remake of The Drifters’ version of “White Christmas.” A cover of a cover, in other words—and, what’s more, in the context of a Christmas album, a genre that already has perhaps a uniquely low expectation for originality. (Bublé has said that the track was inspired by the use of The Drifters’ version in the movie Home Alone, which makes this a Christmas cover of a Christmas cover by way of a Hollywood blockbuster. That is such a perfect storm of American pop-culture hegemony that I might just cry a tiny, eagle-shaped tear.)

The shills have been out in force lately, defending the under-consideration-by-your-112th-Congress Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, which, of course, is Spanish for “soup,” which doesn’t actually have anything to do with the bill, but is what I think of whenever I see the acronym in print. SOPA is a pretty dangerously vague mess—I suppose the only real improvement on its predecessors is that the corporations and trade-group lobbyists behind it have at least expected that people would be horrified by the bill enough that its novelties seem designed for plausible deniability: no, SOPA doesn’t legislate actual censorship (because it instead would legislate de facto censorship via cutting off websites’ revenue streams or domain-blocking); no, SOPA doesn’t create a government blacklist (because it instead farms the blacklisting out to rights-holding corporations); and so on.

SOPA, as of this writing, may or may not pass, but its mere existence is a sign that the position of culture in this society has reached, at the very least, a curiously dysfunctional place. To wit: You may find yourself listening to Michael Bublé and Shania Twain get all Pat Boone on The Drifters. You may find yourself watching in amazement as the very whence and whither of the Internet is voted on by a flock of congresspeople whose collective idea of the Internet seems to have been gleaned from Jack Valenti’s 1998 Christmas letter. And you may ask yourself, to quote a particular piece of copyrighted content, “Well, how did I get here?”

Here’s a possible answer: quantum mechanics.

[A] measurement always causes the system to jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured.

—Paul Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics

measureNo, quantum mechanics might not be the most obvious answer (that would be the corrupting influence of money), nor the most plausible answer (that would be the corrupting influence of money), but it is, in its own analogous way, an answer. And it has to do with Dirac’s observation up there, defining the fundamental wonder and exasperation of quantum physics: measure a system and it changes the system. This is something I think a lot of people have a passing familiarity with, either via Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (you can’t know both the exact position and the exact momentum of anything) or Schrödinger’s cat, sitting in its box, neither alive nor dead until one opens the box to check. Dirac hones in on the real weirdness of it: the system changes in different ways depending on what it is you’re trying to measure. It’s counterintuitive in a very specifically quantum-mechanical way—the sort of thing that drove Einstein himself to fits over the last decades of his career—but, nevertheless, you can sometimes catch a glimpse of it in the macrophenomenal world.

For example, in Michael Kaiser’s now-infamous column decrying the rise of Internet-based arts criticism. As many have already noted, Kaiser’s head-shaking concern was almost nostalgic in its oddly incoherent flinching at the profusion of online commentary. But one can get more of a grasp on the complaint, on just what Kaiser is objecting to, by asking: what’s the worst-case scenario? Kaiser:

No one critic should be deemed the arbiter of good taste in any market and it is wonderful that people now have an opportunity to express their feelings about a work of art. But great art must not be measured by a popularity contest. Otherwise the art that appeals to the lowest common denominator will always be deemed the best.

It would seem that Kaiser’s worst-case scenario is that someone would go see some lowest-common-denominator arts event instead of something presumably more edifying solely because some unvetted online critic recommended it. There are a lot of questionable assumptions behind that scenario: that highbrow and lowbrow are always mutually exclusive, that enjoying one necessarily precludes enjoying the other, that anyone is going to agree on such boundaries in the first place except in the broadest terms.

But look closer at Kaiser’s yardstick for criticism, at what dynamical variable he’s using to measure the system of creators, critics, and audiences. Kaiser is measuring critics and criticism in terms of how they drive the behavior of audience members—and is assuming that the audience is always functioning as, basically, consumers.

It’s easy to dismiss Kaiser’s column as just another misapplication of 20th-century assumptions to the 21st-century online world, another old codger missing the point of the Internet. But what if its own tiny scratch of damage has already been done? You measure the system, you change the system. What if Kaiser’s assumption—and every other post-WWII consumerist assumption about culture—has been steadily bumping the system into fixed categories? What if we’ve measured culture in consumerist terms so steadily that the culture is now irredeemably consumerist?

Think about it: SOPA is a terminus, not a departure. I find it telling that the greatest amount of SOPA’s possible collateral damage would fall on those websites built around user-generated content—the most obvious examples of the Internet’s tendency to blur the line between creator and audience. But why would members of Congress be at all attuned to the importance of user-generated content? Their entire framework of thinking about culture—the stew of lobbying and access and informational gatekeeping—is predicated on a one-way cultural street from creators to consumers. That’s how culture is measured in Congress, in terms of money from corporations and trade groups that still operate under consumerist assumptions, in terms of controlling audience behavior rather than enabling it. Such measurements have been made so often and for so long that the system, ever shunted down consumerist tracks, is now running on a parallel spur some distance from the way people actually relate to culture. It’s going to need a lot of switches to get it back.

Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle.

—William Lawrence Bragg

There’s a familiar, conventional analysis that, especially in the wake of post-tonal modernism, classical music drifted away from mainstream culture. Within this bit-of-a-stretch quantum framework, one could easily argue the opposite: mainstream culture, ever more oriented around consumerist assumptions via repeated measurement on those terms, has drifted away from styles of music that demand listeners be less passive consumers and more actively parsing co-conspirators. Both arguments are far too simplistic—the classically bequeathed tradition is awfully active for a sidelines relic; mainstream culture isn’t lacking for artifacts that reward more active audience engagement.

But it points in an interesting direction, one where more experimental forms of music-making—or any other cultural activity—are both the victims and the salvation of the cultural system. The machinations of trade groups and Congress are no doubt a threat to the ecology of less-easily-packaged forms of cultural production. But every measurement collapses some small part of the system into a new eigenstate: every time a bit of culture encourages an audience member to be more than just a consumer, encourages them to measure the system in terms other than consumerist terms, encourages them to reverse the flow and generate culture of their own, just maybe it starts to turn the ship around a little.

Three fables, in order of increasing ambiguity. The first is the tale of Anki Toner’s This is the End, Beautiful Friend, an experimental recording that remixed the sound of the theoretically silent run-out grooves from various records into an ambient sound-object of its own. Originally posted to the Internet Archive, in 2010, was suddenly made unavailable on that (US-based) site, the collection of surface noise and static apparently enough of a provocation to trigger a reaction from the American system of online copyright enforcement.

The second comes from my old piano teacher, Dmitry Paperno, a Russian émigré, a link to the great Russian piano schools of the 19th century, and one of the most old-school cultured people I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing. During my time of study with him at DePaul, the school acquired a new grand piano for its recital hall. Paperno played it a couple of times, decided he didn’t like it. When asked why, he replied, “It gives up its secrets too easily.”

The third fable is one of my favorite stories about bankers:

The old House of Morgan had encouraged attendance at partners’ meetings by handing out gold coins. In a modern variant, Morgan Stanley gave out ten- or twenty-dollar bills to partners when they entered a meeting. They also got to divide the booty left by absentees. The only unanimous attendance occurred once, in a snowstorm, when everybody planned to make a killing. (Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan)

Measure the system, and you change the system.

Music After

Eleonor Sandresky

Eleonor Sandresky, photo by Robin Holland

[Ed. Note: This Sunday will mark the 10th anniversary of September 11, 2001. In the music community, the terrible events of that day triggered a huge amount of repertoire ranging from John Adams’s Pulitzer Prize-winning On the Transmigration of Souls for chorus and orchestra, Richard Danielpour’s hour-long American Requiem, Robert Moran’s recently premiered Trinity Requiem, jazz pianist Amina Figarova’s September Suite, and a 9/11 Memorial Suite collectively composed by the members of Gamelan Son of Lion to numerous more intimate works for smaller forces as well as tons of songs in all genres. All across the United States and around the world there will be commemorative concerts featuring this repertoire as well as newly created works. Of these myriad events, which are too numerous to conclusively enumerate, Music After—a 15 hour plus concert marathon organized by composers Daniel Felsenfeld and Eleonor Sandresky—has particular resonance since it will take place in Lower Manhattan, not far from the site of the former World Trade Center, and will specifically involve composers and performers who were living nearby on that fateful day. We asked Eleonor Sandresky to share her thoughts about organizing this marathon and what role composers can have in our ongoing collective healing process.—FJO]

If there’s one thing you can count on about an anniversary, it’s that there will always be another one. They just keep coming no matter what. As the 9/11 anniversaries come and go, you think that maybe this year you won’t mind so much, that this’ll be the year when you don’t notice it coming a month in advance because you become irrationally irritable and sensitive or because you can’t sleep. The images that the media show over and over again don’t get dull with time for me, for us. Whoever thinks that we should all be OK with it by now, or that we somehow need to be reminded, want to revisit the trauma. Can any of us ever forget or be the same?

In contemplating a 10th anniversary of 9/11, I initially thought I’d just have to leave town and go to some corner of the world where there would be no news, no images, no language that I could understand, just to get away from what would surely be a barrage of speeches and images and retelling. I didn’t want any retelling, at least not the usual kind of retelling. About a year ago, my good friend Daniel Felsenfeld sent an email around to his fellow composers below 14th Street stating his intention to put together a marathon concert on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 of their music. . I am on that list. At that time he had an organization that he was working with. Months went by. Then last May he called and asked me to co-produce this crazy marathon concert as the organization had fallen out. He called me because on the morning of 9/11 he was staying in my apartment on Warren Street, just north of the WTC. I had just left to go on tour with the Philip Glass Ensemble. While I was watching the world burn, my world, my neighborhood, my home, on television, Daniel was inside my home answering the phone and telling people that we were OK. We were safely out of town and our building was still standing. He, on the other hand, was very far from being safe.

Another thing about anniversaries is that they are generally passive, marking time passed after major events, and in this case, as a result of actions taken against us. The point of marking them is to remember, to relive them in some way—to honor the happening, whatever and whenever it was. But is it enough to just mark the passing of time and not-forgetting? We decided that it not only wasn’t enough, the memorializing and speechmaking and politicizing wasn’t the right way for us to honor the day.

So he called me to do this with him and immediately it felt like the only thing I could possibly do on this day—make a place where we can ALL go, all the people who suffered experiences like us and all those who just want to be with us, and we can make it safe from the things that I needed to avoid. He needed to avoid all those same things too.

Pretty quickly we realized that we had the same vision for what the day should be: a place without speechmaking, politics or memorializing. We just wanted it to be music, and that’s what it is going to be, from 8:46am, the time the first plane hit, through midnight. And so we began. Our first steps were figuring out where to hold the event, Joyce SoHo, while simultaneously contacting as many composers as we could think of to get them involved. Right away philosophical discussions on what constituted Downtown, how far north we wanted to be on the day and the issue of what kind of pieces we wanted to have arose. Deep discussions about tone and tenor of the event, length of pieces, who would play, etc, took place over lunch at Cheryl’s, a restaurant in Brooklyn. That’s also where we named the marathon Music After, thanks to Daniel’s wife Elizabeth. The question of what kind of music answered itself in a way. Composers just seemed to understand that what was needed was something that was practical as well as appropriate: practical in that each composer would have 15 minutes to present music with very little time for setting up or sound checking; and appropriate in that everyone wanted to respond to the day in a particular way. What that way is has been very individual. As curators with a vision for the day, our job has been largely one of guidance toward fulfilling that vision.

Knowing that putting together a marathon concert of this nature would be difficult, and even questioning whether or not we would be able to handle it, neither of us could say no to this compelling idea, creating a special place where there is only music. We both hoped that it would, and will, provide all of us as individuals and as a community with some semblance of healing or release through the action of coming together on this anniversary, so we set out to fulfill the mission. Within two weeks of deciding to do this, I went to meet Ralph Jackson at the new BMI offices to talk about what the event could be and to get assistance in finding other composers who happened to be in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001 . Knowing where the BMI offices are—the new WTC 7 tower that overlooks the site—and going to visit them are two very different things. It was an indication of what was to unfold repeatedly over the summer and will continue through the event and beyond, I imagine. So much emotion came to the surface for me just by being there and looking down from that great height. At that moment I knew that producing this marathon would not be easy emotionally.

I tend to be private about my traumas, as many are, so deciding to do this was putting myself out there in a pretty public and uncomfortable way and with people that I hadn’t actually met in some cases. And never mind that it’s still difficult to think about. It’s not actually difficult to talk about it once I get started, but then I go back to that place ten years ago and it’s hard to come back out. Actually, I have been astonished by how great my need still is to tell my story, so that it could be heard and understood, even though it takes me to such a dark place—drops me there and leaves, taking me hours to crawl back out to greet life again. So I agree to talk about it in interviews and answer questions. As I tell my story in press interviews, I watch as Daniel’s face takes on a haggard, haunted look. It takes me back there too—to that hotel room, watching my neighborhood literally crash to the ground from my virtual street corner on the television.

We next met with Ed Harsh of Meet The Composer in the hopes that they would be able to help identify composers; we called ASCAP, the Jazz Gallery, and Harvestworks; persisting into August with additional help from composers already on the concert. As composers were identified and contacted, we made spreadsheets in Google docs to keep track and when we reached our maximum, we met at the Joyce SoHo with flash cards in hand to begin literally placing music in blocks and then in an order. With all this help and working hard to track people down, there are still many composers missing from this concert. We have always known it would be an impossible task to find everyone, and that if we did the concert would last around 36 hours if not more.

Even as we were tracking down composers, we were also searching out performers who would be right for the pieces we were planning to program. So many performers wanted to participate, and some so much so that they went to extremes to make it happen: Kathy Supové made a video of Morton Subotnick’s piece and Ethel found a substitute violinist for Jennifer Choi when her family obligations required her presence elsewhere. These are just a few of many stories like this. It really continues to be the most amazing and uplifting experience to work with so many committed and brilliant musicians. There is an amazing trust that is permeating the whole process of creating this event. Daniel and I have been putting musicians together who have not played together before, in music that they don’t know, with a tech team that they haven’t worked with, and without exception all have given nothing but generosity and graceful flexibility that continues to be deeply inspiring. A few weeks ago, we stepped back and let our new production manager, Mike Clemow, take over organizing sound checks and tech requirements, etc. It has been amazing to read the email flying back and forth between players, composers, and tech as they sort themselves out for rehearsals and sound checks. This has left Daniel and me time to continue arranging the flash cards for each composer into sets, which took place at Cheryl’s, the Joyce SoHo, and Daniel’s dining table with daughter Clara keeping and ever watchful eye, should a card accidentally drift to the floor.

Each of us on Music After lived that day up close. We each have a need to tell our stories, and we have been doing it through our music whether we intended to or not since that day. It is there, an indelible part of our psyche now. But even as we were talking to each of our composers and asking them for music to put on a concert that was not about memorials or speechmaking or politics, every one felt that they wanted something that was appropriate for the day, and for some that was their 9/11 music, because every one of us goes to that dark cave of a place inside when we hear the words “nine eleven.” We can’t escape it in our heads, and in order to get it out of our heads, we need to tell our stories.
This concert is about a public telling of our stories through music; and in organizing this we have heard a lot of stories. Some of those stories have expressed themselves in very harsh and accusatory ways. People’s emotions are still running high. Assumptions have been made, and we have been tarred with the brush of commercialization by a few. Some composers just don’t want to be involved because they can’t do it yet. I feel deep compassion for them and hope to see some of them on Sunday, the anniversary day.

As I’m writing this, I find that through all the retellings to press and donors, I actually feel better. It has taken me to a different place and the action of connecting to my community through making this marathon concert has already brought me some measure of healing. Hopefully it has done the same for them, too. For me, the darkness and pain has been ameliorated, at least for the moment, through the power of action in organizing our community to make music together, as difficult as it has been at times and may always be.

We are creating Music After so that the collective “we” will be able to come together and share our creations, to tell our stories and tell them through our most eloquent language, music. Through the telling of stories in this public forum, we are giving ourselves something to do, an action to take, but more importantly we are collectively making a gift, delivering a love letter, to our community and to our city. So this anniversary will be about music. We are still here, living our lives and making music. This is what we do and these are our stories. Come and hear us.

Classical Music to Unite a Community

It’s Friday evening. I’m sitting outside, picnicking with my family in a beautiful spot, sharing a view of a gorgeous river with 5,000 fellow residents of my rural community at southern Maryland’s River Concert Series. I see lots of young kids, teenagers, multi-generational families, people from all walks of life. I see a hillside just behind the stage, full of children running and playing. We’re watching the Chesapeake Orchestra, conducted by Jeffrey Silberschlag. Tonight’s concert: Sibelius’s 7th Symphony, Bartok’s 3rd Piano Concerto (soloist, Eliza Garth), Shostakovich’s 1st Symphony, and a world premiere of a fine piece, Mirage,” by young composer Mary Coy.

For us, this is a typical summer evening. The River Concert Series has been uniting my community for thirteen seasons. For seven Friday nights in June and July, we all come together to enjoy each other’s presence, watch the sun set over the St. Mary’s River, and hear fabulous performances. The Chesapeake Orchestra is a fine orchestra, professional, made up of some of the best musicians in the Washington/Baltimore area. The concerts are held on the grounds of St. Mary’s College of Maryland, a small public liberal arts college where I teach in the music department. The principal players are college music faculty, as is the conductor. Scattered among the orchestral membership are a few select students. Over just the past few seasons, we’ve heard major works of Mahler, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Dvorak, etc., as well as new music (including world premieres) by Chen Yi, Scott Wheeler, Louis Karchin, Jeffrey Mumford, Judith Shatin, Kenji Bunch, Nathan Lincoln-DeCusatis, and William Thomas McKinley, among others. We’ve heard Jon Nakamatsu playing Rachmaninoff’s 3rd Piano Concerto, Anne Akiko Meyers playing Barber’s Violin Concerto, Susan Narucki singing Aaron Jay Kernis and Berlioz, Caitlin Finch, Lara St. John, the Ahn Trio, the Haydn Trio Eisenstadt, and many others.

Most remarkable, though, is that these concerts would happen in this way in this community. Our local county has a population of only 105,000. The two neighboring counties that make up the rest of this little peninsula add another 230,000. That puts fewer than 350,000 people within an hour’s drive of the venue. Yet an average of 35,000 people come each summer, which—even as that figure undoubtedly includes repeat attendees—is astoundingly high and a sign of strong local support. My personal experience living here bears that out: throughout the year, nearly everyone I meet—from the people who come to work on my house, to local doctors, to wait staff in local restaurants, to the people who fix my car, to my neighbors who work at the local Navy base—when they find out I work in the music department at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, they inevitably tell me that they love these concerts, that they never miss them. (For the record, though I am a member of the faculty, and currently serve as chair of the music department, I do not participate in running these concerts, was not involved at all for the first five years, and am now involved only informally.)

The concerts are free, with free parking. The money to fund the performances is raised mostly from the local community. Local businesses donate because they see their employees and customers in the audience enjoying these events. Local government wants to be involved because the voters are there. The food is good: area restaurants have discovered that they can introduce their food to a lot of people by setting up booths and selling picnic meals, and one can find everything from pit barbeque to gourmet sandwiches to great Indian food. The series attracts large numbers of younger people, too. My two daughters, a teenager and a preteen, both love going because their friends are there (as are their school teachers). The concerts—serious music notwithstanding—are informal. We bring lawn chairs and choose to sit in one of three sections, labeled “serious listening,” “casual listening,” and “serious socializing.” Over the years, the “serious listening” section has grown. But even in the back of the concert space, where the serious parties are going on, you can see the orchestra and hear the music, and people do pay attention.

Conductor Jeffrey Silberschlag has been the driving force. Besides being a first-rate musician, one of his greatest strengths is inspiring partnerships – with local business, local government, state government, local donors, and, of course, the college, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, which hosts the event.

Why is this repertoire classical and not primarily pops? Or rock or jazz or country? There is some pops mixed into the season, and sometimes a well-known jazz artist will perform as a part of an evening. But the concerts are mostly serious classical repertoire, and when we hear pops or jazz, it is in this context. This is because Silberschlag’s belief is that classical music works best for pulling the whole community together. He believes that other musics might fragment the audience, whereas classical music still seems to be seen by a large part of the general public as having universal appeal. The outdoor aspect also helps: the audience isn’t shut into a darkened hall and told to be completely quiet, so no one feels intimidated. They are free to enjoy themselves and go home feeling that they’ve heard something of quality. This has worked for thirteen years in our little community.

The series has grown, with music and other activities happening throughout the seven weeks. Now there are movie nights, with chamber music afterwards (thematically connected to the movie and that week’s orchestral concert); chamber concerts scattered through the community; a variety of educational activities (including a four-day pianists’ retreat with pianists Eliza Garth and Brian Ganz). But the heart of the summer is the orchestral concerts.

Our model has precedents: the New York Philharmonic concerts in Central Park or the National Symphony concerts on the Mall are two prominent examples. But those are occasional events, they lose money, and they tend towards pops programming. Further, as we’ve learned this year, they are subject to cancellation when funding runs low. For the Chesapeake Orchestra, this is what they do, supported by the community because it provides one of the few opportunities for us to come together for the sheer pleasure of the experience.

This clearly is one possible model for classical music’s future. The orchestra, though part-time, is paid fairly—in fact, the musicians have told me that they are thrilled to return each summer, and because of this, over the years, the membership has become quite stable. The music is heard through speakers and the acoustics are supplied electronically, but the sound is more than decent, the orchestra plays beautifully, and most important, the concerts are fun for everyone. More than just proof that classical music can reach beyond the aged and wealthy, the River Concert Series shows that classical music can be the way to unite an entire community.