Archive for April 11th, 2012

Cavalleria Rusticana: Easter in Rome

Wednesday, April 11th, 2012

“There is no disputing taste,” “fashions change,” “to each his own,” and “vive la difference.” Certain pieces come in and out of the classical music repertory, while others never get a foothold; still others seem omnipresent. Classical music institutions today have to grapple with balancing repertory over the course of years, to make sure everything that must be played is played; new music that stimulates the muse of our most creative composers is given a hearing; that neglected or unknown works from the past are heard.

I have spent the last ten days in one of the cities I love the most: Rome. I have been rehearsing and conducting the Orchestra and Chorus of the Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia, one of Italy’s leading cultural institutions since its inception in 1908. I conducted three concert performances of Pietro Mascagni’s Cavalleria Rusticana (“Rustic Chivalry” is the literal translation of its ironic title), an opera that has enjoyed international success since its premiere, in Rome, in 1890. One of the world’s most popular operas (it ranks as the tenth most-performed work at the Metropolitan Opera), it is loved or scorned by musicians and music lovers; on both sides, many are vocal, few are neutral. It is performed so often that its image, as opposed to its substance, has degenerated in the eyes of many. It is a work that suffers from overexposure, under-rehearsal and performances of dubious taste. It has mostly been offered as the first half of “Cav and Pag,” a marriage that has endured, for better and for worse, since the first decade of the bride’s and groom’s appearances. Though a highly theatrical work, the music of Cavalleria stands firmly by itself, as I think was demonstrated this past week. 

One might ask why someone would want to perform this supposedly hackneyed opera for an audience that knows it so well and probably has heard it dozens of times? I have avoided conducting it for exactly thirty years (since leading a series of performances at Covent Garden) because I was not able to pull together all the elements—cast, orchestra, chorus and sufficient rehearsal time. The added prospect of collaborating with such an outstanding chorus and symphony orchestra also appealed to me. 

It turned out to be sort of a premiere. This great Italian orchestra had never played Cavalleria in public. Its last, and only, contact with the work was more than half a century ago, in 1960! That recording, conducted by Tullio Serafin, and featuring Giulietta Simionato, Mario de Monaco, and Cornell MacNeil, is now historic. But the link with the composer and the city was evident last week. Some nine thousand Romans came to hear the performances, among them Pietro Mascagni (a great-great-grandson) and Domenico Mascagni (a great-grandson of the composer). Seeing them, the distinction between past and present seemed to dissolve for a moment. 

The performances were extremely gratifying. Almost no one in the orchestra had ever played Cavalleria, but it seems to be in each musician’s DNA. That paradox produced extraordinary results. In an age of “international orchestral standards” there is still—thank goodness—a unique affinity that orchestras and choruses bring to performing music of their own cultures and in their own languages. What impressed me along with the sensitivity and depth of the playing was the power of osmosis. Given the surprising absence of performances of this work in the city of its birth, it is clear that these musicians had absorbed this work by other means from the culture into which they, and it, were born. Playing it for the first time, it sounded as if they had been doing so for decades. Conservatory education and professional experience, as essential as they are, do not tell the whole story of the formation of musical artists.

Food for thought: Two things strike me. First, on the assumption that some pieces are overplayed, they actually get ignored. I wonder, in the U.S., how much of our own music we similarly overlook. Do we need reminding that the body of classical music that is North American needs to be performed by those for whom it is an inherited style? Classical music in America is an imported art form. As we continue to develop young musicians on an ever higher technical level, it is important to recognize that, without a parallel commitment to absorbing the cultures from which the repertoire came, we will inevitably drift farther from their essences.

Second, I think it was Miles Davis who said, “It’s not the notes you play, it’s the notes you don’t play.” The resonance of the “unplayed notes” of this supposedly hackneyed opera were deeply evident in Rome last week. Mascagni’s first opera, written at the age of 24, created what was to become a new musical language, while depicting to perfection a specifically Sicilian drama. As Bizet, who had never seen Spain, intuited its essence and expressed it in Carmen, so Mascagni, who never travelled to Sicily, captured a part of its soul, and the late nineteenth century’s consciousness, in this sordid drama. The beauty and pwer of this music is still alive and well in Rome today.

American Mavericks, Part 2 (the Tax Man Cometh)

Wednesday, April 11th, 2012

by Sedgwick Clark

I really should be working on my taxes . . . .

Cage, Cowell, Adams, Varèse

The first concert to involve San Francisco musicians in the series, on Tuesday in Carnegie Hall, began with the most anticipated event of the series: Cage’s whimsical 1970 Song Books, with Jessye Norman, Meredith Monk, and Joan La Barbara the unlikely trio of vocalists, and Tilson Thomas miming various actions. Cage provides nearly a hundred numbers to be executed, organized by the performers. MTT chose a half-hour selection for this occasion. Frankly, the So Percussion concert LINK the previous evening provided far more fun in Dan Deacon’s less pretentious Cage knockoff, Take a Deep Breath.

Cage said that Henry Cowell, whose Synchrony (1930) followed, was “the open sesame of new music in America.” Maybe. But except for an all-Cowell concert LINK by the American Symphony under Leon Botstein at Lincoln Center two years ago, performances of his some 1,000 pieces have been few and far between since his death. For all his purported innovations–the most influential being “tone clusters,” in which the piano keys are struck with the fist or forearm–all the works I’ve heard seem to exist more as showcases for inventiveness than cogently structured music. Still, the nearly 14-minute Synchrony begins with a gorgeous three-minute trumpet solo (beautifully played by SF’s Mark Inouye) and contains lovely moments until its abrupt ending.

A lot of people I respect venerate John Adams’s music. His Absolute Jest was composed for this Mavericks tour. It’s a sweet, inoffensive piece inspired by (in the composer’s words) “the ecstatic energy of Beethoven, who was the master of taking the minimal amount of information and turning it into fantastic, expressive, and energized structures.” The problem with such an homage is, once Absolute Jest ended, all I could remember was Ludwig van’s Ninth Symphony scherzo and the opening movement of the Op. 131 string quartet. When a Stravinsky—whom Adams often evokes rhythmically—throws in a skittish reference to Rossini’s Il Barbiere di Siviglia in Jeu de cartes or an elephantine rendition of Schubert’s Marche Militaire in Circus Polka, it couldn’t be anyone but Stravinsky. The well-received performance was undoubtedly a composer’s dream.

When influences from Stravinsky’s early ballets seep into Edgard Varèse’s Amériques (ca. 1918-21; rev. 1927), one smiles knowingly but can’t possibly escape the gruff French-American composer’s path-breakingly percussive voice. Alan Gilbert and the New York Philharmonic performed Varèse’s complete works LINK on two roof-raising Lincoln Center Festival concerts two summers ago. Gilbert’s Philharmonic predecessors Pierre Boulez, Zubin Mehta, and Lorin Maazel also played Varèse’s music—Boulez most distinguished of all—but I don’t recall any Varèse at Carnegie since the stupendous Philly/Muti Arcana in 1985 and Cleveland/Dohnányi Amériques in 1989. Enter Michael Tilson Thomas and his virtuoso San Franciscans, who shook the rafters with a smashing, superbly played Amériques. Now Arcana, please?

Ruggles, Feldman, Ives Orchestrated

Tilson Thomas has been the master interpreter of Carl Ruggles’s Sun-Treader (1926-31) since performing and recording it in 1970 with the Boston Symphony. His Carnegie Hall performance at that time was the New York premiere. His complete recording of Ruggles’s music later that decade for CBS with the Buffalo Philharmonic and various soloists was recently released on CD for the first time on the Other Minds label. It only amounts to 80 minutes of music, of which the ca. 16-minute Sun-Treader is best known. At the Wednesday concert, the San Franciscans seemed a bit more refined than either of the recordings but without ever compromising this granite-hewn score. More Ruggles, Michael?

I know I should “get” Morton Feldman’s whisper-quiet notes and silences in Piano and Orchestra (1975). I read in James M. Keller’s astute notes of Feldman’s aesthetic alignment to the painters of the New York School. A friend explains how carefully the harmonics and pauses are composed, but I’m still left as cold as a white Rothko canvas. I’ll keep trying, but Feldman performances don’t come around often. There is no doubt, however, of the commitment and artistry of pianist Emanuel Ax, whose forays into 20th-century and contemporary music are admirable, the conductor, and the San Francisco musicians.

Charles Ives composed his “Concord” Sonata between 1916 and 1919; then he obsessively revised it until 1947. That’s 31 years. The even more obsessive American maverick, Henry Brant, took five years longer to orchestrate it (1958-1994), calling it A Concord Symphony. From the very opening the orchestral garb bears a strong resemblance to Sun-Treader’s dissonant palette, which makes sense because Ives and Ruggles were friends and knew each other’s music well. The San Francisco team’s recording of the Brant orchestration was released earlier in the year on the orchestra’s own (and very successful) label. Needless to say, it’s a “must” for all Ives fans—what the record companies used to call “a sonic spectacular.” But the live experience struck me as even more stunning, revealing overtones in the woodwinds, brass, percussion, and strings that perhaps only Carnegie’s fabled acoustic can offer. Ives and Ives/Brant provide a fascinating comparison, and I strongly recommend listening to the “Concord” Sonata recordings by Pierre-Laurent Aimard (Teldec) and Jeremy Denk (Think Denk Media).

Tax Deadlines Wait for No Munsonian  

Tune in next week for my pithy words on the last two Mavericks concerts.

Looking Forward

My week’s scheduled concerts:

4/12 Avery Fisher Hall. New York Philharmonic/Jaap van Zweden; Yuja Wang, piano. Prokofiev: Piano Concerto No. 3. Mahler: Symphony No. 1.

Can I Fire My Board Members?

Wednesday, April 11th, 2012

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

Dear Law and Disorder:

Many years ago I founded a successful non-profit dance company. Over the years, we have continued to grow by adding board members, increasing donations, and critically acclaimed performances. However, my current board has become too invasive. In the past, I have always given them reports about the upcoming season, plans, new artists, etc, and they have focused on fundraising. As the founder and artistic director, it has always been clear that I was always in charge. Now, some of the newer board members are starting to demand financial reports and budgetary control. The new board chair recently wanted to be involved in interviewing a new development director I wanted to hire! My understanding has always been that the legal role of the board was only to raise money. How do I stop this situation before it gets worse? Is this something I can address in the by-laws? Can I fire the board members? What are my legal options?

 

First, and foremost, congratulations! Clearly, under your leadership, you have created a viable and sustainable organization for which you deserve an extraordinary amount of credit. For the purposes of your question, I am going to presume your non-profit has also been approved for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by the IRS. This is important because not all non-profit organizations are also tax exempt. A non-profit organization, like its for-profit cousin, can organize and operate in whatever manner its founder or owners decide—subject only to whatever restrictions may be imposed by the law of the state in which it is formed. However, a non-profit which has also applied and been granted tax-exempt status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code must operate under very specific guidelines in order to maintain its tax-exempt status.

In applying for and receiving 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, the founders of the non-profit are striking a grand bargain with the IRS pursuant to which, in exchange for permitting donations to the organization to be deductible and exempting the organization from having to pay taxes on its income, the founder must forfeit sole control and ownership. Like a scene from a Dickensian novel, once a non-profit organization applies for and receives 501(c)(3) status, its founder abandons the organization on the steps of society. It becomes an “orphan” whose care and welfare is left to the community. The community is represented by the board of directors, which is then charged with overseeing the management and operations of the tax-exempt non-profit to ensure that it continues to serve its mission and tax-exempt purposes. The artistic director and founder can—and, in my opinion, should—serve on the board of directors, but the organization is no longer owned by anyone. In short, it is not “your” organization. It is not anyone’s organization. It belongs to the community and, as such, the authority and control of the organization rests solely in the board of directors.

In your situation, it sounds as if your board is transitioning from a culture where you have understandably been given much deference to one where the board wants to assert more control and oversight. While I understand that this can be frustrating in many respects, it can also offer many positive opportunities for growth and sustainability. A healthy tax-exempt organization requires a constant exchange of expertise and experience between the board members, administration, and artistic leaders who must in turn balance many competing considerations in carrying out the organization’s mission: art and business; emotion and practicality; innovation and tradition. Even in a situation where an organization’s founder might be perceived as the best person to arbitrate such things, the organization’s by-laws cannot legally bestow upon any one individual—the founder, the board chairman, the artistic director—sole control and authority. Unless the board has some degree of meaningful control and oversight authority, not only does the organization risk losing its 501(c)(3) status, but also jeopardizes its relevancy and viability as a community institution. On the other hand, while the board needs to have control over major decisions—such as the hiring and firing of the artistic director or whether or not to raise funds for a new production—if the board asserts too much control, it risks losing its artistic legitimacy. The surest path to artistic disaster is to allow a board of well-meaning attorneys, business leaders, and wealthy patrons to dictate casting, programming, or other similar artistic decisions. These are extraordinarily difficult and perilous paths to navigate, to be sure, and are littered with organizations who, in either failing to address these issues correctly or ignoring them completely, have fallen into the abyss of bitter feelings, splintered boards, burned out staff, depleted endowments, and even bankruptcy.

Rather than looking for a means to assert—or maintain—absolute control, it sounds as if the time has come for you and your board to evaluate the organization’s operations and structure. Among other things, does your organization have the right balance of wealth and wisdom, both financial and artistic, on its board? Is there a plan should you, as artistic director, want to retire or take a less active role? What if an overly-aggressive board chair presents itself? How are decisions made? Now is the time to reflect not just upon your by-laws, but the policies, strategies, and procedures necessary to ensure a healthy balance that can sustain the future of the organization you have nurtured this far.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ftmartslaw-pc.com.

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. FTM Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!