Russian Day Celebration?

June 25th, 2015

By Sedgwick Clark

A purported “Russian Day Celebration” on June 12 at Carnegie Hall was one of the more perplexing concerts of the season. Widely publicized was the legendary St. Petersburg Philharmonic, with the orchestra’s “Deputy Artistic Director,” Nikolai Alexeev, on the podium rather than its distinguished artistic director, Yuri Temirkanov. The program was unimaginative, but Tchaikovsky’s Fourth and Shostakovich’s Fifth are two of my favorite symphonies, and it was a Friday night with nothing else to do. It turned out that an intermission kerfuffle was most memorable.

Alexeev proved himself to be a faceless time beater. His Tchaik 4 was low voltage and disgracefully uncommitted for an orchestra of the SPb Phil’s heritage. The famous pizzicato scherzo, in particular, was shockingly flat. For some reason, the orchestra seemed transformed in the Shosta 5. After several ragged attacks at the beginning, the players settled down and proved that they hadn’t forgotten what the music means, playing with genuine involvement. The double basses dug in, violins had bite in the pianissimos, pizzicatos had presence, and the players were attentive, no longer swallowing their notes as they had in the Tchaikovsky. Even the conductor showed some involvement, although not to the point of any interpretive distinction. The finale’s coda was played the Russian way, slowly.

Oh, yes, the kerfuffle.

An imposingly large Russian audience member, decked out head to toe in white with a red sport coat, was sitting on the other side of the aisle, two rows in front of us. He had been flipping nonstop through photos, apps, and websites on his Smartphone throughout the first half. During intermission, an elderly American concertgoer in the row behind him politely asked the Russian to stop disturbing his neighbors. The Russian stood up and shouted, “Who are you?” He pointed at the man and said, “Go sit down. Do you know who I am? You won’t get home tonight.” The American replied, “You’re not in Russia now,” and went to get an usher. PK then went over to the ruffian and said, “I was actually about to ask you the same thing,” to which he demanded, “Why are you looking at my phone?” She countered that “it is directly in my sightline and I can’t avoid it.” He was chastened enough that he put his phone away and just fidgeted incessantly throughout the Shostakovich. Is this the sort of Russian Day performance Mr. Putin had in mind?

Bumps and Bychkov at MPhil

June 25th, 2015

Semyon Bychkov in 2013 in London

By ANDREW POWELL
Published: June 25, 2015

MUNICH — 2014–15 has been a rough transitional season for the Munich Philharmonic. Lorin Maazel’s sudden resignation a year ago forced its managers into much recasting, and some feeble programs. Then, midseason, came worse news. An irksome pact between Munich’s Bürgermeister Dieter Reiter and Bavaria’s Minister-Präsident Horst Seehofer nixed plans for a needed new concert hall to replace the Gasteig and instead envisioned a joyously slow disemboweling and inner rearrangement of that acoustically poor facility, which would leave the MPhil homeless starting in 2020. The pact sent Anne-Sophie Mutter, Christian Gerhaher and Mariss Jansons into public displays of betrayal, rage and frustration, respectively. But MPhil managers could not whine so loudly because the city owns the orchestra, so, a week behind everyone else, including the testy Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra (also affected), they emitted six splendid bureaucratic paragraphs saying absolutely nothing.

Somehow the musicians have ploughed through this temporum horribilis and on Monday (June 22) managed to sound confident and poised at the Gasteig under Semyon Bychkov. Grandly he propelled them in Brahms’s Third Symphony (1883) stressing contrasts and drama with wide arm gestures. Fine wind contributions, not least from principal horn Jörg Brückner, flattered the score’s textures, and Bychkov took a pleasingly weighty and leisurely approach to the middle movements, observing dynamic markings with care. Ravel’s G-Major Piano Concerto (1931) after the break found everyone on less sure footing, however, despite this being the program’s third iteration. Jean-Yves Thibaudet gave a dull, woolly account of the solo part. Ensemble weakened. The long concert remained in French mode for its conclusion, Debussy’s La Mer (1905), but this listener had to run.

Tomorrow, the same partnership performs in the Pala de Andrè as a guest of the Ravenna Festival. MPhil 2014–15 closes fully with concerts here led by Kent Nagano and Krzysztof Urbański, but in September more headaches loom when Valery Gergiev takes over as Chefdirigent. Systems are supposedly in place to prevent the skimpiness of preparation associated with the new boss. It is unclear what, if any, measures are in place to cope with the political challenge.

Photo © Chris Christodoulou

Related posts:
Trifonov’s Rach 3 Cocktail
Stravinsky On Autopilot
On Wenlock Edge with MPhil
Mastersingers’ Depression
Modern Treats, and Andsnes

UPDATE ON U.S. VISA DELAYS

June 19th, 2015

Hi everyone

I realize that this is outside of our normal blog posting schedule. However, understandably, there is a growing concern over the recent…and ongoing…computer crash that has resulted in U.S. Consulates around the world being unable to issue visas. This means that even artists who have been issued I-797 approval notices from USCIS are currently unable to get their visas from a U.S. Consulate. 

This is a worldwide problem and is not limited to only a few consulates. It is also not limited to O and P visas.

Unfortunately, there are no contingency plans. An approval notice alone cannot substitute for a visa and without the visa, an artist cannot enter the U.S. and perform (even for delayed or no payment.)  Until the computer system is fixed, visas cannot be issued.

The U.S. Department of State recently updated its website to say that they did not expect the problem to be solved before next week. Once the system is back up, priority will be given to issuing visas for medical emergencies and humanitarian cases. Sorry, concerts and performances do not qualify as humanitarian cases.

Here is a link to the current update on the U.S. Department of State Website:

http://www.travel.state.gov/content/travel/english/news/technological-systems-issue.html

For additional information, here is a link to information on the website of the U.S. Consulate in London:

https://uk.usembassy.gov/

Most major U.S. presenters and venues are (or should be) aware of this problem and are making their own contingency plans. Nonetheless, you should advise them of this situation if for no other reason than to make sure that everyone understands that this situation is entirely the fault of the U.S. Department of State and could not have been foreseen. (Step #1 in any crisis: assess blame.)

In the meantime, we are advising everyone to monitor the U.S. Consulate and U.S. State Department websites daily and take the next available appointment. There is no point in contacting the consulate or requesting an emergency appointment. Because this has impacted everyone worldwide, there are no emergency appointments or priority channels available for artists with concert or performance dates.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, project management, 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, management, 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 and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

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!

 

 

 

 

Nielsen Feted at 150

June 19th, 2015

By Sedgwick Clark

Alan Gilbert’s recorded cycle with the New York Philharmonic of Danish composer Carl Nielsen’s symphonies and concertos was feted on Monday by the orchestra at SubCulture, the lower Eastside concert venue. The symphonies were released in pairs as recorded by the orchestra live in concert over the last four years by the Danish Da Capo label. The completed four-CD set includes the three concertos—for violin, flute, and clarinet, superbly performed in concert by Nikolaj Znaider, Robert Langevin, and Anthony McGill, respectively. I’ll report on the concertos and revisit the symphonies soon, along with two other recently completed symphony cycles I’ve yet to hear by Colin Davis and the London Symphony on LSO LIVE and Sakari Oramo and the Royal Stockholm Philharmonic on BIS.

There was talk at the SubCulture event, to be sure, but there’s no doubt that a captivating pair of live performances will last longer in the memory. First, Nielsen’s distinctive humanity, warmth, and wit were ideally captured by five Philharmonic section leaders in his delectable Wind Quintet, Op. 43 (1921-22). I’ve marveled at the bold individuality of the Philharmonic winds on record and in concert for over 50 years, and it amazes me that this unrestrained projection of character and drama remains similar throughout many changes of personnel over the years. On this evening, Robert Langevin (flute), Liang Wang (oboe), Anthony McGill (clarinet), Judith LeClair (bassoon), and Philip Myers (horn) played impeccably, delightfully attuned to the composer’s cheerful sense of humor.

Nielsen’s four string quartets are considered more earnest than inspired; indeed, he abandoned the genre following the premiere of the Fourth Quartet in 1907, four years before completion of his Third Symphony, the work that established his repute as a major composer. But more performances like the impassioned one by Denmark’s Nightingale String Quartet of the first of his quartets, in G minor, Op. 13 (1887-88), might well cause some reappraisal among Nielsen scholars. Mark my words, given perspicacious management, the talented young women of the NSQ will be back again soon.

Walter Weller—Master of the Russians

News came on Wednesday of the death, at 75, of Walter Weller, a concertmaster of the Vienna Philharmonic and founder of the Weller Quartet before taking up conducting and making several memorable recordings for Decca-London. Among them, a noteworthy Prokofiev symphony cycle with the London Philharmonic included a revelatory performance of the composer’s bombastic Age of Steel Second (for once it didn’t sound careful). The end of his excellent Shostakovich First recording with the Suisse Romande, coupled with a delightful Ninth, featured one of those patented Decca bass drums that blows you out of the room. Nor did he hold back the savage timpani attacks in the finale of his Rachmaninoff First with the Geneva orchestra.

I only heard him in concert once, with the New York Philharmonic in February 1980—not a distinguished evening, I’m afraid. All I recall is that the strings fell apart in the closing diminuendo of the Mahler Fourth slow movement, and the Times’s Harold Schonberg turned around to me and exclaimed sotto voce, “Did you hear that? I’ve never heard that happen before!”

Weller held several European posts, including music director of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, Royal Philharmonic, Scottish National Orchestra, and most recently the National Orchestra of Belgium. “He was so well-liked in Scotland,” reports Musicalamerica.com, “that the government printed his image on a special £50 note.” Now that’s class!

Are You Being Served?

June 11th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

You frequently mention that the artists are our clients, but aren’t the presenters our clients, too? If an artist is acting unreasonably or is going to do something which we know will negatively impact the presenter, we can’t afford to alienate or lose a relationship with the presenter over one artist. We will need to work with them in the future.

No one can serve two masters. The artists are your clients. The presenters are your customers. When you are in the business of representing others—whether its in real estate, law, insurance, investment, business transactions, or the performing arts—this is an important distinction to understand: while you need to be polite and professional to your customers, you owe allegiance to your clients.

Think of it this way: I have a friend who manages one of the perfume counters at Saks in New York. He works directly for the perfume distributor and, as such, his job is to sell as much of his products as he can. He knows his product line, represents it well, and offers impeccable customer service. If a shopper wanders by, his job is to turn the shopper into a customer by enticing them with the signs, smells, and quality of his products. However, what if the shopper doesn’t want or like his brand? What if they are allergic to the smell of Eggplant Noir or they find the name “Evening in Hoboken” is less than enticing? My friend smiles and lets them wander over to Guerlain or Jo Malone. He remains true to his products even if it means losing a customer.

As managers and agents, it is in everyone’s interest—both yours and your artist’s—to provide the best customer service possible to presenters and venues. First and foremost, it makes good business sense. A manager’s or agent’s professional relationships are among the most valuable asset he or she provides to an artist. Second, the arts community is quite small and the shoe you step on today may be the one you have to lick tomorrow. Nevertheless, as an artist manager or agent, you legally owe a duty to the artists you represent to act only in the artist’s best interest, not your own, and to take no actions that would advance your own interests at the expense of your artist. These, among other duties—such as fiduciary duties and duties of care—are legally implied in every manager/agent relationship with an artist—even where no formal contract exist. In fact, the law considers these duties so important, that any attempt to have artists waive them in a contract are considered void and unenforceable.

Admittedly, this can often pose some frustrating conundrums for managers and agents—especially in situations where an artist directs you to withhold important information from a presenter or directs you to take action that you know could harm the presenter and harm your own relationship with the presenter. This can include anything from performing without the necessary licenses or visas to intending to skip out on a residency activity they didn’t want to do in the first place by feigning illness. Should such circumstances arise, then your duty is to advise your artist against the foolishness of his or her plans. However, if the artist persists, and you believe that your own professional relationship with the presenter would be imperiled, then your only legal course of action is to drop the artist from your roster. Anything else—such as giving the presenter a “head’s up”—would be a legal breach of duty. If you would prefer a role where you are legally allowed to act in your own best interest at the expense of all others, start a record label or become a producer.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, project management, 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, management, 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 and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

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!

 

 

Noted Endeavors with Steven Swartz: When Should You Hire a Publicist?

June 10th, 2015

When is the right time to invest in a publicist? Publicist and founder of DOTDOTDOTMUSIC, Steven Swartz, addresses this with Noted Endeavors founders Eugenia Zukerman and Emily Ondracek-Peterson.

Noted EndeavorsSteven Swartz is the founder of DOTDOTDOTMUSIC, which offers public relations services to individuals and organizations in the new music field. Steven’s background includes journalism, radio, the recording industry and PR. He previously spent 16 years as the director of publicity at Boosey & Hawkes. Along with Sarah Baird Knight, his partner in the firm, Steven’s integrated approach to publicity builds careers and audiences through increased visibility and enhanced presentation. As he says, “There’s a galaxy of voices clamoring for attention, and DOTDOTDOTMUSIC helps artists cut through the noise.”

For more about DOTDOTDOTMUSIC and Steven Swartz, go to:
DOTDOTDOTMUSIC.net

For more about Noted Endeavors, go to:
notedendeavors.com

See-Through Lulu

June 6th, 2015

Marlis Petersen and Dmitri Tcherniakov rip into a münchner Breze

By ANDREW POWELL
Published: June 6, 2015

MUNICH — After the genetic mismatch of Kirill Petrenko and Gaetano Donizetti here, it was a relief to watch the conductor easily navigate and ignite the tone rows of Lulu last week (May 25 and 29) at the National Theater. Happily he did so using Cerha’s reconstitution of Act III and supported by an eloquent, virtuosic Bavarian State Orchestra, now truly his orchestra twenty months beyond the systemic jolt of the handover from Kent Nagano.

The GMD conveyed the differing compositional powers of each act almost entirely through soft, finely balanced ensemble, favoring transparency. Where the music rose dynamically, as in his ardent account of the palindromic Act II Zwischenspiel or the pithy societal interjections of the Paris scene, its contours and colors palpably stunned the capacity audience.

For these reasons alone these were luxurious traversals of Berg’s stimulating, exacting, 185-minute score. They revolved, though, not around Petrenko but upon the musicianship of the charming and beautiful Marlis Petersen, 47, who drew rapturous applause at evening’s end.

Meek early on, she sang out fully in the anti-heroine’s Act I duettino with the Painter (Rainer Trost on vivid form) and gauged her sound with Lied-art intelligence — but a diva’s command of the stage — from that point forward. The bright firm voice sailed into the house with greater body of tone than many a Lulu, shaded emotionally and locked into Berg’s text.

Having first essayed the role sixteen years ago in Kassel, Petersen has developed crisp, moving inflections for its unaccompanied dialog and Sprechstimme, and on these nights she fashioned from every last morsel the composer provides a gutsy, honest, amusing, vulnerable and above all integrated portrayal.

Daniela Sindram had a harder time making an impact as the pivotal Gräfin Geschwitz in this new production. In fact the mezzo barely stood out at all because director Dmitri Tcherniakov (pictured with the soprano) put her in pants, muting her sexuality and defeating the counterforce Berg intended to the men around Lulu. (Has Tcherniakov only this narrow grasp of what it means to be a lesbian?)

But she sang expressively, with a golden, even timbre, purity of line and good diction, and she capped her interrupted London monologue with a ravishing Lulu! Mein Engel! That last outpouring endured the distraction of Lulu’s death on stage, contrary to Berg’s plan, and so the drama ended out of kilter as the tempos slowed, and anticlimactic.

Lyric tenor Matthias Klink introduced a sweet-toned Alwa whose volume lessened in high-lying phrases. Bo Skovhus, as his father and Lulu’s lethal client, made a perfect foil for Petersen, magnetic of gesture and clever in pointing the text, even if his tenorial baritone lacked ideal resonance. In the supporting roles, besides Trost, Wolfgang Ablinger-Sperrhacke’s mellifluous turn as the Marquis stood out.

Like most productions at Bavarian State Opera nowadays, this Lulu will look its best through camera lenses rather than from a seat in the theater. Tcherniakov sets all scenes in one static grove of glass panels, much as he locked us in a gray seminar room for his last work here, Simon Boccanegra. Glass of course is an upgrade: it affords depth, allows vivid use of light and overcomes staging challenges, such as when characters scenically snoop. But only the panning and zooming of cameras can make up for missing spectacle in this case.

During Berg’s several Zwischenspiele — intended for scene changes tracing Lulu’s progress and retrogression — the director populates the background panels with stiffly animated mimes, like mannequins in shop windows. Perversely, given today’s common use of projections, he offers no film for the Filmmusik, but a roving spotlight signals its crucial midpoint.

Placement of the panels forces most of the crowd in the Paris scene behind glass, and Tcherniakov drably lines everyone up in a row. Otherwise he strongly shapes and moves the individual characters and, with the one misstep of Geschwitz’s costuming, engages the viewer convincingly, avoiding cliché and graphic violence.

Today’s performance of Lulu, the fourth in a run of five, streams live at noon, New York time, at www.staatsoper.de/tv. (Although named “Staatsoper.TV,” the service is not accessed at that domain.) Three performances are scheduled for September, when Petrenko hands over to Cornelius Meister.

Photo © Wilfried Hösl

Related posts:
Benjamin and Aimard
U.S. Orchestras on Travel Ban
Mastersingers’ Depression
Netrebko, Barcellona in Aida
Pintscher Conducts New Music

Noted Endeavors with Mohammed Fairouz – Young Composers Need a Unique Personal Voice

June 3rd, 2015

Rising star composer Mohammed Fairouz talks with Eugenia Zukerman and Emily Ondracek-Peterson of Noted Endeavors about young composers needing to develop a personal, unique voice.

Noted EndeavorsMohammed Fairouz, born in 1985, is one of the most frequently performed, commissioned, and recorded composers working today. By his early teens, the Arab-American composer had journeyed across five continents, immersing himself in new sounds and experiences. His catalog encompasses virtually every genre, including opera, symphonies, vocal and choral settings, chamber and solo works. His voice as a composer is personal, filled with imagination and surprises.

For more about Mohammed Fairouz, go to:
MohammedFairouz.com

For more about Noted Endeavors, go to:
notedendeavors.com

Noted Endeavors with Joshua Roman – Be a Well-Rounded Artist!

May 28th, 2015

Joshua Roman speaks with Eugenia Zukerman and Emily Ondracek-Peterson of Noted Endeavors about the importance of artists being well-rounded people.

Noted Endeavors“A cellist of extraordinary technical and musical gifts” (San Francisco Chronicle), Joshua has exhibited a wonderfully multifaceted career – cellist, composer, artistic director, entrepreneur, TED Fellow. He believes that musicians should follow in the footsteps of great artists such as Casals and Yo-Yo Ma, basing one’s art on well-rounded understanding of the world.

For more about Josh, visit:
http://joshuaroman.com

For more Noted Endeavors videos, go to:
http://notedendeavors.com

Understanding Legalese

May 28th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

Every time someone sends us a contract, its always a lengthy document with lots of legalese that no one understands. Is there anything wrong with having a simple, one page agreement that everyone can easily understand and will sign?

A lot of people mistake “legalese” for language and terms they either don’t understand or haven’t considered. They see words on a page and immediately assume they can’t possible understand them.

This is legalese:

The party of the first part, which party has previously and hereinafter shall continue to be referred to as the Presenting Party, in and for the mutual obligations, conveyances, and other considerations contained herein, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does for itself and on behalf of its officers, directors, employees, agents, and assigns (hereinafter the “Presenting Parties”), which the Presenting Party does herein attest, warrant, and represent that it has the authority so to represent and bind under the terms of this agreement, does herein and hereby concur, agree, and consent to prohibit, prevent, proscribe and preclude, so the best of its reasonable ability, the degree and extent of such “reasonability” to be determined herein as the term “reasonable” is defined in this Agreement hereunder, the recording and/or memorialization through any and all visual and/or audio and/or audio-visual means and methodologies now existing or hereinafter discovered, invented, or devised, including, but not limited to photography, analog and digital sound recordings, videotaping, screen captures, and any other human or machine-readable medium, the performance of the party of the second part, which party has previously and hereinafter shall continue to be referred to as the Performing Party, including, but not limited to, the performance or any portion of the performance of the Performing Party, including, but not limited to, excerpts, samplings, moments, movements, scenes, rehearsals, outtakes, or other manifestations of the performance or any portion of the performance of the Performing Party, for any purposes of any kind or nature, including, but not limited to…well, you get the idea.   

 This is not:

The Presenter agrees to prevent any unauthorized broadcasting, photographing, recording, or any other transmission or reproduction of any performance(s) or residency activity of the Artist, or any part thereof, by any means or media now known or hereafter invented, including, but not limited to audio, visual, or audio-visual means, and including any “archival” recordings, unless the express prior written consent of the Artist has been obtained.

The difference is that the first example uses unnecessary verbiage, poor grammar, and confusing structure. The second example just has a lot of detail. Don’t confuse “legalese” with “detail.” Whereas you don’t want legalese, you do want detail. Why? Because the whole point of a written document memorializing the terms of an agreement (also known as a “written contract”) is to convey information—not just to have a piece of paper that everyone signs.

Too many people want contracts that are “simple” and “brief” so that the parties will sign them, but that’s pointless. Merely having a signed contract does not mean that an engagement won’t get canceled, that commissions will get paid, artists won’t leave, or that any number of nasty things won’t happen to you. Signed contracts are not self-enforcing. If a dispute arises that cannot otherwise be resolved, the only way to enforce the terms of a contract is with a lawsuit. Lawsuits, as you know, achieve nothing other than making trial lawyers ecstatically happy and wealthy. No one in the performing arts can afford that, either personally or professionally. You don’t want to wait until a dispute arises to find out that you and the other party had vastly different assumptions about what was and was not expected and allowed. Instead, you want to make sure that everyone understands all of the aspects of a project or engagement at the outset and, hopefully, can discuss and evaluate the risks, challenges, advantages, obligations, and expectations of the relationship before they agree to it. In other words, you use a contract to educate, not to enforce.

What determines the length of a contract is the complexity of the project or engagement itself. An agreement for a single artist to perform a single recital is going to be shorter than an agreement for an orchestra to perform a world tour. Similarly, an assignment or transfer of all rights is going to be less complex than a recording agreement or an agreement to re-orchestrate an existing work.

Our industry is blessed with amazingly creative and dynamic professionals who are second to none when it comes to creating imaginative collaborations and engaging performances. However, they become slightly less than stellar when it comes to understanding the business and legal arrangements necessary to effectuate these plans. It’s one thing to discuss dates, repertoire, scheduling, and fees. It’s quite another to consider all of the various details, challenges, and misunderstandings that might come into play: will music or other copyrighted materials need to be licensed? If so, whose responsibility is this? Can either party cancel? Under what circumstances? What if someone gets sick or there is a fire at the venue? Who bears the loss of expenses cannot be recovered? Who is responsible if an artist is injured? Who is responsible for someone in the audience gets hurt? Who is responsible if an artist or crew member damages property of the venue? Who is responsible if someone from the venue damages property of the artist or show? Will visas be required for any artist? Whose responsibility is this? Is the engagement fee to be paid in dollars, pound sterling, euros, or other currency? Which exchange rate will apply? Who is responsible for taxes? Are deposits non-refundable?

This is where a contract comes into play. Yes, it takes time to create and read all of this detail. However, a detailed contract can be filled with all sorts of interesting and mutually beneficial revelations. For example, when recently negotiating the terms of an engagement for one of our own artists, I presented our engagement contract to the presenter—which contains a clause, much like the one above, prohibiting any recordings, including archival recordings. The presenter wanted to make an archival recording and assumed, incorrectly, that these were always permitted. We were able to find a workable solution and adjusted the contract accordingly. We also discovered that while the presenter had not factored in meals and transportation into the budget, we had misunderstood when the presenter actually wanted the artist to arrive. We were able to adjust all of these issues, none of which would have been discovered had we not taken the time to think through all of the various details. In the end, it didn’t matter whether or not the contract was even signed because going through the process itself allowed the presenter and I to discuss all of the details. The contract served its purpose.

In short, a more detailed contract that makes people stop and say “wait, I didn’t agree to that” or “what exactly do you mean by this?” is far better than an artificially simplistic one that everyone signs now and then squabbles about later whilst lashing out such cherished and time-worn drivel as “but that’s industry standard” or “that’s the way its always done.”

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, project management, 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, management, 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 and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

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!