 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: FrankM
Date: 2007-01-05 19:06
I’ve been watching a neat series on an arts TV cable channel called “The Phil”….it’s the trials and tribulations of the London Philharmonia as they play several concerts and prepare for a tour. It follows several members of the orchestra ( including the clarinet player) as they go about their lives and talk candidly about a career as a pro orchestral musician and how hard it is to budget family time, etc. It’s all fascinating to me as an amateur who dreams about an orchestral career.
Anyway, one thing that was mentioned which floored me was that a famous conductor that was hired for a concert will make as much for that one concert as a rank and file musician in the orchestra will make in a year ( I think I heard it correctly). My question to those of you who are pro orchestral players is…..is a conductor worth that kind of money? Are they that musically important ( do they know that much more than the other musicians in the group) or is it a matter of what the public perceives as a “big name celebrities” makes them worth big bucks in ticket sales?? In this series, it mentioned a time when a conductor fell ill and the concert master ran the last couple rehearsals and conducted the performance…..it sounded fine to me !
Is your conductor worth a years salary in a single concert?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-01-05 19:18
The job of the conductor:
1. Guide the orchestra through the repertoire with an interesting perspective and interpretation of the literature.
2. Build a cohesive, responsive ensemble.
2. Put rear ends in the seats.
Frequently, #3 outweighs #1 and/or #2 ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-01-05 19:45
Is the CEO of a large company really worth a hundred or more times the average salary of his workers? I doubt it --- but that's how business works, and a symphony orchestra is first and foremost a business that must make money to survive.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2007-01-05 19:53
It seems to me that you are asking the wrong question of the wrong group of people. The ones who perceive the value of the star performer and/or conductor are not the musicians - after all, they are not the ones paying for the event at which these people are featured.
Instead, the question should be directed to the paying public. And, I would think that many would reply, when given a performance viewed blind and then asked to set a value on that performance as compared to a similar event (also viewed blind), that they had no earthly idea.
The cult of celebrity has always been with us. Whether based upon perceived beauty, or perceived skill, or perceived bravery, or (insert your perception here), it still ultimately is based upon someone's subjective opinions. And, mine are going to differ from yours.
Take Paris Hilton (please). (Barrumph, bump!) She has no real discernible talents that I have been able to find, other than being moderately attractive in a sleazy sort of way. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) However, for whatever reason, she "sells" well, both in media ("Look what she's done now!") or in the flesh ("Paris Hilton appears at club opening!", as could have been read in many such headlines over the past five years or so).
Whether you or I perceive her as being worth the time of day isn't all that important to her (and her "handlers"). Instead, it's whether or not she has appeal to the target group (which is God alone knows who in Ms. Hilton's case).
Looking at it from that point of view, if it puts butts in the seats, then the "celebrity" conductor is a good thing for the musicians and the organization as a whole. Is it pure? Certainly not. Did the "celebrity" create the music (craft it during rehearsals, do the actual performing, etc.)? Of course not. But, that big bucket full of money makes it all worthwhile when looking at the health of the organization as a whole.
It's much the same with pops concerts. They too are better subscribed (at least in my Midwestern experience) than the "high holy" classical or romantic ones. Playing Gershwin makes some string folks of my acquaintance turn their noses up. But, it goes further towards paying for that upper middle class lifestyle to which they aspire than does any number of Mozart works.
A funny (and apposite) tale:
In the late 1980's, a traveling company of talented black opera folks toured through Saint Louis with a lavish production of Porgy and Bess, playing there in the newly restored Fox Theater. Being Gershwin, being in a new facility and being quite well done by the reviews, it was a hard ticket to come by. Our seats were (theatrically speaking) not the best, but the acoustics were adequate so we were happy.
For those not familiar with the work, it was crafted by George and Ira so as to depict the lyric style of black life. In order to advance this, the characters in the work "sing" their roles for the most part. In the productions that I have seen, the only white faces in the cast are those of "official Charleston" - policemen, detectives and the coroner. They just talk, while all around them sing.
In this particular production, the cast was those traveling with the show with one sterling exception. As you might have heard prior to curtains going up elsewhere, "The part of The Coroner will be played by Larry Storch."
Prior to the production hitting town, every television advertisement of the show made damn'd sure to state in no uncertain terms that ol' Corporal Agarn would be appearing in the show. The video shown behind that was of the black cast doing the typical P & B scenes, but Storch's name was always featured. From the commercials (and the billboards), a person unfamiliar with the show would have developed the opinion that The Coroner was a pivotal roles in the play.
The reality, as those who have seen P & B know, is that The Coroner is a throwaway, machine of God part, there only to move the plot along. He has perhaps five lines (it's been a few years, so my memory may be a bit off). I have even seen productions where there is no The Coroner, and one of the police takes the lines.
Now, what was that company's administrative staff thinking when they made the ad materials hyping Larry Storch over the rest of the company (who were superb, by the way)? The answer is, of course, that they knew their audiences well and they did what would produce maximum butts in the seats.
(The tag line on all of this is, when Storch first appeared on stage for his minimalist part, the production stopped while he was accorded a considerable ovation by the audience the day we attended. One wonders what was going through the mind of the performer playing Sportin' Life (whose performance that days was well worth an ovation, which he finally got at the end of the show - there too, Storch's was the greater of the two) when this occurred.)
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LesterV
Date: 2007-01-05 20:09
From a paying customer's perspective, I always enjoy the Boston Pops' music but also feel their conductor, Keith Lockhart, doubles my entertainment. He is a large factor in getting me to purchase a ticket when they perform locally at Wolftrap. From a business standpoint, I would guess that he is probably worth far more than he is paid.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2007-01-05 21:58
When Itzhak Perlman is the guest conductor for the Detroit Symphony, the concerts are almost invariably sold out. Other conductors are not always that great of a draw, although some of the attendance also varies with what music is featured on that evenong's performance.
So I guess for the big names, there is a premium of the "star power" which fills up the hall, much as most of us would go out of the way to attend a major symphony when Richard Stotzman, Sabine Meier or Andrew Marriner are there and playing K622.
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-01-05 22:39
What I'm trying to understand is...does a "big name" conductor raise the "value" of an orchestra (because he/she won't be bothered with a mere garage band), or is it the sheer splendor of the Maestro alone who could do wonders with whatever musicians he's confronted with? Or is it just the "it's Gonzo The Great, so it'll be a terrific performance" nimbus and people buy tickets just because the Smiths from across the street do the same and the aftershow party intrigues them?
I've bought quite a number of "budget" recordings with Eastern-European orchestras of countries I've hardly ever heard of, and some interpretations I like better than "Brand Name" orchestras'. I find it more interesting to hear how the Kokomo Opera tackles Puccini instead of comparing Muti-on-CD to Muti-on-Stage.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2007-01-05 23:53
Back in the 1930s there was an orchestra in Moscow which played without a conductor, which was supposed to be closer to the Communist ideal. However, it was found to be impossible to get that large a group of Russians to agree on anything.
I also seem to remember that for a short period after the death of Toscanini, the Sympnhony of the Air played without a conductor. (GBK or Ken Shaw please either confirm or correct me).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: am0032
Date: 2007-01-06 00:34
It is also of great importance for a director to be persuasive and inspiring to patrons(wealthy people mainly). The ability to build a large endowment means more than what a conductor does with a baton(though it helps). I've read that the Philidelphia Orchestra could play to an empty house for the next 30 years and still be in the black because of their endowment. Selling tickets covers only a small percentage of an orchestra's operating costs.
Adam
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bcl1dso
Date: 2007-01-06 00:57
I just want to say that I don't care how much the ticket costs of where in the world the concert is, but if we could have just one more concert of Marcellus i would be there withouth a doubt.......and so would the rest of the clarinet world. ; )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-01-06 04:14
I was impressed that Mehta's conducting with the Vienna Phil on New Year's day was not worth much. I have no idea how much he had to beat on the musicians to product that performance, but he did not do much to "pull" expression or articulation from the musical company.
My impression was that he sort of "counted off the band," and they played wonderfully --almost without further guidance. I have no idea how, for example, the strings managed to be so together, to articulate so consistently. Awesome.
The musicians seemed to look at each other more often than they looked at the conductor.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2007-01-06 16:16
I think that conductors (teachers) are most important where the musicians (students) are developing their skills--that is, middle school, high school or college. A great teacher can "make" the program. However, at the professional level where most of the musicians can perform with near perfect technique and musicianship, the conductor becomes more important for his name recognition among the patrons. Put Jerry Lewis in front of the Chicago Symphony and you would pack Orchestra Hall--and the orchestra would still sound great in him. However, Jerry conducting a middle school concert might be less of an artistic success.
Are the great conductors worth it?? At the profesional level, I think they get far too much credit for what is really due the players. But consider that they are really "up there" on the podium to sell tickets and if they can do that, then maybe the big bucks are someshat appropriate.
But, just listen to that orchestra play--aint Jerry Lewis great..............(??)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2007-01-06 16:20
. . . and Frank Sinatra never passed up an opportunity to conduct the Columbia Studios Orchestra. Made a few nice recordings, too. Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-01-06 16:26
William wrote:
> Are the great conductors worth it?? At the profesional level,
> I think they get far too much credit for what is really due the
> players. But consider that they are really "up there" on the
> podium to sell tickets and if they can do that, then maybe the
> big bucks are someshat appropriate.
I think it gets very complicated. To become a "big name", during the formative (younger) years a conductor must struggle with an orchestra to get their ideas heard; in this case the orchestra being on "auto-pilot" is a horrible detriment to the conductor. The new conductor has to communicate - effectively - their ideas to a bunch of professional musicians, each of which:
Has done it a thousand times already
Could do it better
Knows the right way to do it
Thinks this new conductor is all wet behind the ears
etc.
It's not a job for the faint of heart, especiallly during the first decade or so of being a conductor ... you're arguing and negotiating with some of the best artists in the business.
Ob. Disclosure - I have a kid in grad school at the Tokyo Geidai studying conducting
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2007-01-07 18:25
A conductor has to have many different abilities. He is like a CEO, running an enterprise with around 200 employees. He has to be able to deal with rich people and/or politicians and we know how obnoxious they can be. He has to be a psychologist dealing with 70 or 80 cranky, egotistical musicians. On top of all that he has to be a great musician. There are very few great musicians around, and even fewer who have the other skills needed to be a great conductor.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
