Klarinet Archive - Posting 000198.txt from 2005/12

From: Karl Krelove <karlkrelove@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Nutcracker
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:24:51 -0500

This thread has morphed into a debate with Forest over (a) whether or
not Nutcracker is good music and (b) whether or not professional
musicians should complain about having to play annual multi-performance
runs of it. The (perhaps) interesting thing is that the original
expression of opinion about Nutcracker's lack of musical quality was not
Forest's, but Dan's. Forest at first only posted a one word reply to
Gary's question about the length of the complete Nutcracker 1st clarinet
part. A few comments - basically in agreement with Adam:

Adam Michlin wrote:

> Dear List,
>
> To play devil's advocate, McDonald sells the most hamburgers. Should
> all restaurants start making hamburgers in the style of McDonalds?
> Filling up the seats is important, but it can ultimately become self
> defeating if it is made the one and only measure of success. The San
> Francisco Symphony comes to mind as an organization which has managed
> to balance artistic concerns and commercial concerns quite well. It
> can be done, but don't let anyone tell you it is easy.
>
The Devil hasn't much to do with it. Major orchestras and major dance
companies wrestle endlessly with the issue of balance between popular
money makers and more adventurous programming. That they must do both to
survive and remain vital is a given, I think, among major arts
organizations in the US. I assume it's the same on other continents.

> That, however, has nothing to do with musicians who are tired of
> playing the Nutcracker. Clearly, many aren't so sick and tired that
> they choose not to accept the money, but I submit they have earned the
> right to complain. First, just because many people *want* to do a job
> doesn't mean many people are either *qualified* or would really want
> to do it if they received a dose of reality. Second, being able to sit
> through dozens (months and years, in some cases) of performances of
> the same blasted piece is one of the things that makes a professional
> musician professional. It can be quite shocking when one realizes that
> how well you play is rather low on the requirement list of being a
> professional player.

There are two points here.

One is the question of what constitutes professionalism in music
performance. We've had this discussion back sometime in the distant
past, and it turns out that your own definition of "professional player"
determines how important a requirement a player's skill is. There are
certainly players who don't play very well making money each December
playing for Nutcracker productions, and maybe being able to last through
many performances, sometimes 2 in a day, because of the paycheck it
produces qualifies such players as professionals. Or maybe not.

The other point really seems aimed at those who say "He should be glad
for the opportunity. I'd trade places in a heartbeat." People say this
about many other fields - not just about players who complain about
having to play Nutcracker or Beethoven 5th or Dvorak 9th over and over
because these pieces "put fannies in the seats." People say it quite
publicly about school teachers - especially when contracts come up for
negotiation - and about doctors who complain about long hours or high
insurance costs, as well as other relatively high stress, often
repetitive jobs. The fact that someone looking from the outside sees
only the result (good or not) and not the process makes it a little
pointless for those who aren't doing something (for whatever reason) to
criticize those who are doing it and complaining that it's become excessive.

I have always enjoyed playing in theater pits - it almost doesn't matter
what show it is - and it's always been nice to be paid for it. But I
start to tire of a book (and whatever is going on above me on the stage
that I can hear) after only a week or two of rehearsals and
performances. I have no idea how the Broadway players manage to play a
show, I imagine, for years without going absolutely bonkers! Would I
take one of those jobs if it were offered to me? Probably. Do I have any
trouble understanding why the people who have them would complain of
boredom? Absolutely none.

>
> Yes, of course, it is the job of that professional player to play as
> if they aren't bored to death, but it is completely unfair to blast
> them for being honest in a forum such as Klarinet. There are some
> absolutely wonderful aspects to being a professional musicians and
> there are some not so wonderful aspects. I think each and everyone of
> us could make a similar list for our respective professions. Why is it
> we don't blast doctors, lawyers, and teachers when they complain about
> their day at the office ("You should be just lucky to have a job",
> "People would kill to have your job")?

See my comment above. This does happen all the time - just maybe not on
Klarinet.

> Perhaps this is partly because we think professional musicians get to
> "play" all day. It is important, however, to realize that professional
> musicians work very hard for their money earning every right to
> complain about their bad days.

The important point isn't, I think, even how hard they work in the
performances themselves, but how much effort and commitment they've made
in getting to the point where they can do what the public hears
performance after performance.

> Very few, if any, professional musicians get to make a living
> performing what they want to performing, when they want to perform it,
> all the time.

Probably none. I'll bet even virtuoso concert soloists complain about
having to play /that/ concerto again, when there are so many more
interesting ones out there that no one wants to hear.

FWIW,

Karl Krelove

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org