| Brought to you this hour by |  | Advertising and Web Hosting on Woodwind.Org! |
Doublereed Archive - Posting 000006.txt from 2003/07
From: Barbara Trautwein <mzeztee@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [DR-L] community orchestra philosophy (fwd)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:05:52 -0400
Dear List,
I forwarded some of the questions and comments that appeared on the list a
week or so ago to David Hagy who conducts the orchestra I play in in
Salisbury, NC . . a community-style orchestra whose members ARE paid
albeit modestly. I got this thoughtful response with permission to pass
on anything I thought useful to the subject at hand. Here's the entire
message. . .and NO !, I'm not ready to give up MY chair. . ..
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:49:23 -0400
From: David Hagy <dhagy@-----.edu>
To: Barbara Trautwein <mzeztee@-----.edu>
Subject: Re: [DR-L] community orchestra philosophy
Regarding programming for a community orchestra I try to keep many
factors in balance. They are briefly but not necessarily in order of
priority:
1. Works the audience members want to hear
2. Works the audience will enjoy hearing although they don't know them.
3. Works featuring soloists that will draw an audience. (These may
include community members.)
4.. Works that the orchestra want to do.
5. Works that the orchestra will enjoy even though they don't know
them.
6. Works that will challenge the orchestra. (This can be technically,
musically, rhythmically, mentally, etc. all of which I try to balance as
well.)
7. Programs with a variety of periods, styles, intensity and
seriousness/lightness.
8. Works that challenge or excite me.
9. Works that I believe should be heard.
I have often programmed works that I have known would be difficult for
my orchestra. I have only done this when I felt the rehearsal time was
adequate so that a fairly good performance was possible and I have told
the orchestra about the challenge in advance.
Creating a positive reputation for the orchestra so it will draw good
players involves many other factors than the difficulty of music
performed. These include again not necessarily in order of priority:
1. Treating all musicians equally. (If all musicians are paid poorly
but in a fair system some good musicians may still feel they are being
treated as fairly as possible.)
2. Treating all musicians with respect.
3. Treating all musicians as individuals, knowing their names, and
understanding their particular problems and needs.
4. Communicating any problems with musicians' performance PRIVATELY and
with respect for the person. (This does not mean not correcting
mistakes in rehearsal, but rather taking each person's work from where
it is and making it better, not expecting it to have been better to
begin with. If work should have been better to begin with or is not
progressing as it should then these discussions are done PRIVATELY!)
5. Being totally prepared for every rehearsal.
6. Making sure all factors of the environment are conducive to good
music making, i.e. temperature, lighting, no distractions, good
acoustics, safe chairs and risers, sound shields for those near brass,
proper breaks, rehearsals not too lengthy, etc.
These are my thoughts on your question.
Best wishes,
David Hagy
Music Director, Salisbury (NC) Symphony Orchestra
Orchestra Director, Wake Forest University Orchestra
Artistic Director, Winston-Salem Youth Orchestra
--RAA14336.1057266354/f1n11.spenet.wfu.edu--
