By James Conlon Several great classical musicians have passed away in recent months. Van Cliburn, Henri Dutilleux and Sir Colin Davis have each left an enormous mark on our world, and their passing, in keeping with their international status, has been rightly observed on several continents. Today I offer a personal homage to the conductor Bruno Bartoletti, who died last week in Florence, a day before his eighty-seventh birthday. He was known, and will thus be remembered by those of us who had the fortune to know him, for his extraordinary knowledge, artistic vision, elegance, courage and tenacity. In Florence, at the Maggio Musicale Fiorentino, the many colleagues, musicians and chorus members whose lives and careers he influenced over the course of decades feel his loss. His colleagues and public in Chicago also acknowledge the same appreciation, where his association and artistic leadership saw the newly born Lyric Opera grow into the international opera company it is today. He was born in an age when conductors did not study gestures, podium demeanor or baton technique. He learned music in conservatory, and then conducting by apprenticeship. He first witnessed, and later participated in, a golden age of Italian vocalism. He embodied many qualities of the conductor/artistic director that seem to be in shorter supply now. He was erudite; a person of broad culture and taste. It was an age in which knowledge of, respect for, and devotion to inherited tradition was considered fundamental. Part of that tradition was the defense of new music. He courageously and tenaciously promoted twentieth-century opera everywhere he worked. The new works he introduced, and sometimes premiered, is long. Today, the presence of many of these operas in the repertory is taken for granted. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that, at the moment Bruno Bartoletti was defending them, many were not even known, let alone accepted by the public. The list includes works by Bartók, Berg, Bolcom, Britten, Ginastera, Janáček, Penderecki, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. Alongside that mission, he defended Italian opera as part of the great patrimony that he, and his entire nation, received as a birthright. He took Rossini, Donizetti and Bellini no less seriously than Verdi and Wagner. He insisted that conducting Puccini and the Verismo composers be taken no less seriously than conducting Stravinsky or Debussy. He revered this tradition and bristled – as I do – at the notion that it is in some way inferior. By happenstance, I was in Florence the day he passed away. I had barely arrived here when I heard the news, and consequently did not make it up the hill for my customary visit. His sprawling villa, with his many scores and books, was situated across the road from the estate of Lord Acton (which now serves as the Florentine Academic Center of NYU). My older daughter Luisa studied there for a year, and I once visited them both on the same day. I am in Florence for this year’s Maggio Musicale, marking the Verdi Bicentennial by conducting the original version of Macbeth in the Teatro della Pergola, the very theater in which the work was created in 1847, conducted by the composer. I was looking forward to discussing the early version of Macbeth with Bruno. He would doubtlessly have had a lot to say. He was the embodiment of an age that took for granted the notion that an interpretative artist’s first obligation was to know, respect and, yes, revere inherited culture, its works of art and performing traditions. For him, defending those traditions was not in any way antithetical to the advocacy of the new and innovative, demonstrating that there is no contradiction in so doing. By serving two supposedly inimical masters, he showed that they are, in reality, one.
Archive for June 19th, 2013
Your Move or Mine?
Wednesday, June 19th, 2013By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: If I am booking an artist, whose job is it to draft the contract? Some venues ask me to send them my contract, but other venues seem to have their own. What’s the normal practice? Since you asked for the “normal” practice, I shall tell you: the normal practice is that some venues will ask you to send them your contract and other venues will have their own. It all depends on the circumstances and the venue. You should always have a basic engagement contract that you can tailor for each artist and send to a venue who wants your contract. However, you should expect larger venues to prefer to use their own contracts just as most venues understand and expect that major artists will insist on using the artist’s contract. It really doesn’t matter as both parties will need to review the proposed contract and, if necessary, proposed changes, additions, and amendments. Its unrealistic to presume that the venue’s contract will address all the issues important to the artist and that artist’s contract will address all the issues important to the venue. Negotiation is not just about date, time, and fee. Negotiations include ALL of the terms which will be in the final contract. What you want to avoid at all costs is a situation where, in lieu of taking the time to review and negotiate a single contract, the manger or agent just attaches the artist’s contract as a rider to the venue’s contract (or visa versa) and the parties proceed. Almost always the two contracts will have conflicting terms which will operate to negate the entire contract, making neither one legally enforceable. (And, no, it doesn’t help to use a rubber stamp that says “in the event of a conflict, mine governs.” That only benefits the folks who sell rubber stamps.) Even more important, regardless of who goes first, is to never ever ever ever ever send anyone a signed contract at the outset. The contract should be signed only after all parties have had a chance to review, make comments, propose changes, attach riders, and agree upon a final version. Otherwise, the party receiving the signed contract will simply strike out or amend the language they don’t like…or, worse, attach a rider…sign it, and return it…which, legally, constitutes a counter-offer and not an enforceable contract. (Actually, it “could” be enforceable, but this gets into complex legal issues which could all be avoided if everyone just sent one another blank contracts and waited until all issues had been resolved before anyone signed anything!) I realize that it takes time to review, negotiate, and amend every contract. However, that’s what contracts are for. It gives each party a chance to make sure that all important issues have been addressed and that there will be no unstated expectations or assumptions. Contracts are not about enforcement…they are about avoiding conflicts and disappointment. Without question, life would be easier if there were standard contracts and terms that worked for every engagement. However, we work in the arts. Nothing is normal and nothing is customary. If you are looking for consistency, go work in a bank. Otherwise, learn to embrace the chaos. __________________________________________________________________ For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.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. GG 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!