Lincoln Center's Culture Gap

[Pete C]

Interesting and generally scathing article about Lincoln Center in today's NY Times Magazine. Here's the link to the whole article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/05/ma...WLN110420.html

There's only a bit about JALC:

True, Lincoln Center has made more than a few concessions to modern art forms. Foremost among them is Jazz at Lincoln Center, which was founded in 1991 and claims a distinguished artistic director -- Wynton Marsalis, 41, the leading trumpeter of his generation. The jazz program is about to acquire a new, architecturally glamorous home, the Frederick P. Rose Hall, the first major new building to rise at Lincoln Center in more than a decade. It is also the first to stand apart from the rest of the so-called campus; it will occupy the sixth floor of the AOL Time Warner Center nearing completion at Columbus Circle.

''Anyone who talks about the elitism of the arts doesn't know what they're talking about,'' Marsalis told me in a phone conversation from London, where he was performing. ''What about when you stand on line at a disco for 45 minutes, and then you are told you're too ugly to get in? That's elitism!''

Although jazz began as a form of popular music, these days it is often elevated to the same plane as the symphony orchestra or the ballet. Marsalis has been at the helm of the effort to lend jazz a high-art gloss, and in his own performances he favors the big-band aesthetic of Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington. He even dresses like them. Brooks Brothers has donated an undisclosed sum to the jazz center for the privilege of being its official clothier.

In other words, the jazz program at Lincoln Center specializes in classical music -- classical jazz, that is (not to mention classical mens' wear). Unsurprisingly, Marsalis speaks with disdain about contemporary forms like rap. ''I have three children,'' he said firmly. ''They listen to rap music, but I don't support that. I don't want my kids listening to music about pimps and bitches. Kids like rap because it exploits their sexuality. When you educate your son and daughter, it is incumbent upon you to take them to things you think should be part of their lives. That is what a civilization is about, an effort to ascend.''

[Gary Sisco]

The "leading" trumpeter of his generation? Not the most well-known publicly, mind you, but the "leading" trumpeter. Give it a rest already.

Kids listen to rap for exactly the same reasons that their parents listened to rock and roll, or Wynton listened to funk (and played it, too). Not a single difference. What nonsense. And his comments are ignorant, since there's a ton of hip hop that is *not* about "pimps and bitches." That's some stupid shit.

[Gary Sisco]

<>

Perhaps we should not be surprised to hear that when Lincoln Center looks forward to the future, it looks forward to all the splendors that are gone.




That's a great line. Sounds like the jazz establishment at its best.

[Pete C]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
<>

Perhaps we should not be surprised to hear that when Lincoln Center looks forward to the future, it looks forward to all the splendors that are gone.




That's a great line. Sounds like the jazz establishment at its best.

In context, though, for those who haven't read the article, that line was in response to the idea of a new dance repertory company for the work of dead modern choreographers.

[Jon Abbey]

during the talk about the new JALC building, does anyone ever mention that it immediately becomes the most tempting terrorist target in NYC, with CNN HQ being housed there?

[Gary Sisco]

Nah, terrorists watch CNN, too, Jon. You think they weren't as glued to the tube 9/11 and after as most Americans were?

"Anyone who talks about the elitism of the arts doesn't know what they're talking about."

Those people must all be ignorant simpletons whose opinions are not worth listening to.


"I don't want my kids listening to music about pimps and bitches."

Hey, that was your fault, Wynton. You were the one who first played them those Jelly Roll Morton records when they were at a young impressionable age.

[Gary Sisco]

People who don't know how to make rational arguments use alternatives like "they don't know what they're talking about," which is merely declamation. How does he know? Who are they? Etc. It's not an argument. It's hardly even an opinion.

It's not necessarily the case, clearly, but it is beyond argument that the classical music establishment, at least in the US, has long perceived itself as dealing with "real" music and "real" art, etc. Hell, it wasn't long ago and maybe still is (I don't read the paper edition anymore), that the NYT referred to classical music in its listings simply as "Music." All the rest of the forms required an adjective, like jazz or pop, or whatever. Classical music, in short, *is* music, to that kind of brain. Millions of guys (like me, for example, until very recent times) tended to almost totally ignore the Music, largely for that reason. There was and is a cultural gap, there, and if anyone created the highbrow-lowbrow divide, it wasn't the lowbrows, let's face it.

Ironically, the music that's considered the most snooty of all in the US -- opera -- was originally, in its native cultural-historical context, entertainment for the masses of the great unwashed. The hoity-toity at the time didn't go to "theatres." It just wasn't done.

[Paul B]

Actually, it's a shame classical music has been overtaken by the elitist camp...with "friends" like that, who needs enemies? Take away the institutions, though, and the music is as alive and beautiful as anything. Don't let the stiffs turn you off from something good...

Bye-ya.

[stonemonkts]

I hate to admit this, but, after discovering Jazz I basically find much of the music in my collection deemed "classical" simply quaint, and not nearly as engaging as jazz.

Notable exceptions to that statement are Bach, late Beethoven, some Mozart (especially his chamber music and a few of his operas), most of Dvorak, some Brahms, and certain "modern" pieces (Bartok is a favorite in that category). That may sound like it covers a lot of ground but in truth it excludes 60-70% of my "classical" collection.

Although a lot of that music is not "free" in the jazz sense of the word, I hear much of Bach's keyboard music as simply him penning his own improvisations, as it were. If I'm wrong about that, so be it, but it wouldn't hamper my enjoyment of his music one iota.

Now that I think of it, I'd include Chopin, Liszt, and some Schubert to the list of notable exceptions.

Maybe I'm full of shit regarding the original premise for this post!

The new Lincoln Center venue will never be as quaint, eclectic, or wonderful as the Tanglefoot Festival.

[Paul B]

I could understand someone not being engaged by classical music, just as I could understand someone not being engaged by jazz. But calling classical music "quaint" seems odd to me...The music of the composers you mention (and others you don't, such as Schumann) isn't still being played hundreds (if not more) years after it was composed because it's "quaint." It is powerful, rich, beautiful music--just not for everybody.

In fact, I'd say jazz is in far greater danger of sounding "quaint" these days, because there is so little of it that is original or daring--all the more disappointing because originality and daring are the very qualities improvised music should possess in abundance.

Bye-ya.

[Pete C]

"Early Music" is quaint.

[stonemonkts]

Originally posted by Paul B
I could understand someone not being engaged by classical music, just as I could understand someone not being engaged by jazz. But calling classical music "quaint" seems odd to me...The music of the composers you mention (and others you don't, such as Schumann) isn't still being played hundreds (if not more) years after it was composed because it's "quaint." It is powerful, rich, beautiful music--just not for everybody.

In fact, I'd say jazz is in far greater danger of sounding "quaint" these days, because there is so little of it that is original or daring--all the more disappointing because originality and daring are the very qualities improvised music should possess in abundance.

Bye-ya.

I'm one of the people enriched by the music. I listened to it almost exclusively for 20+ years. I still experience rapture when I listen to the composers I mentioned.... if I had to be specific I suppose the quaintness is in the structure (sonata form?) which you have to admit can be a bit formulaic (allegro, adagio, minuet/scherzo, allegro). The composers I mentioned were ones I do NOT find quaint.

Beethoven's late quartets are examples of music which I would say is beyond category, and perhaps the greatest achievement of any person in all music. My comment was reserved for cookie-cutter stuff, the best (or worst, I could say) example would be practically anything by Vivaldi.

The last thing I would do is knock classical music in general. I have a fairly broad collection of it, but at this point I can do without anything which smacks of a march, for example. The local station out here plays the worst tripe imaginable. At best it is quaint!

Your point about jazz in danger is one I definitely agree with, but of course it depends on which area of it you focus on....as I type this I'm listening to Sam Rivers and Dave Holland which I would say is quite far from quaint. Next up is Mario Pavone (septet with Thomas Chapin).

The Brooks Brothers set is a whole other matter entirely. Those guys are doing their damndest to petrify the genre. I don't think we are at odds on either subject.

[mke]

Originally posted by Pete C
"Early Music" is quaint.

I rarely listen to music before 7 AM.

[Gary Sisco]

Paul -- I've slowly been dipping into it over the past couple of years, though mainly on the relatively modern side, except for Bach, who I've been listening to all along. Seems I've always had some in my collection. It's too bad that there's so much cultural baggage attached to it, and to its presentation as well, in many cases, radio included. I'm only now getting so I can listen to all but the more modern without having that baggage mediate my enjoyment of the music, with exceptions for rare pieces that seem to transcend all of that.

I'll probably not become more than a sampler, since I have serious interests in several other forms besides jazz, and there's only so much time for listening, but I'm more interested in it today than ever before.

[Erik Lund]

''What about when you stand on line at a disco for 45 minutes, and then you are told you're too ugly to get in? That's elitism!''


Nah, baby! That's *gumbo*!





And Mwanji takes a Cherches line and slaps it back with a Cherches-like rebuttal! Toooooooooooooooooooooooo-SHAY!

You *elitist* fencing snobs can ninny on my spelling all you want!

[Pete C]

Well, the Philharmonic and Lincoln Center are stuck with each other:

October 9, 2003
Picking Up the Pieces After the Philharmonic Deal's Collapse
By ROBIN POGREBIN

She loves me, she loves me not.

Like a jilted lover whose straying paramour now seeks reconciliation, Lincoln Center has to figure out how to continue its 41-year-old relationship with the New York Philharmonic now that the orchestra's fling with Carnegie Hall is over.

The Philharmonic still faces the issues with Lincoln Center that made it try to flee: Avery Fisher Hall's flawed acoustics, a renovation that could cost as much as $250 million without necessarily solving the problem, and finding a temporary home. But the mood has changed. Lincoln Center, which took a blow by being publicly spurned, now appears to have the upper hand because the Philharmonic has nowhere else to go.

How real was the plan to merge in 2006? How far did the two sides get? The deal was struck in June, and as recently as August, Paul B. Guenther, the chairman of the Philharmonic, was telling his board that he expected to have an agreement to sign by October. Sanford I. Weill, chairman of Carnegie Hall, said on Tuesday that there were "a lot of executive committee discussions about the process," adding that progress was slowed by summer schedules.

Trustees of both Carnegie Hall and the Philharmonic, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, said they felt frustrated that the talks had never gotten off the ground.

"If they couldn't agree on the core issues, what were they talking about?" a Philharmonic board member asked. "This deal had no legs. There was total disagreement."

After the announcement that the talks had been shelved, a joint telephone interview was conducted on Tuesday with Mr. Guenther; Zarin Mehta, executive director of the Philharmonic; Mr. Weill; and Robert J. Harth, executive and artistic director of Carnegie Hall. They agreed that the discussions had progressed little beyond the expressed desire to join forces.

"We only got as far as thinking this was something we wanted to do," Mr. Weill said.

The talks about artistic control, shared finances and combined boards came apart mainly over dividing up performance and rehearsal time in the main hall, Isaac Stern Auditorium.

"The substantive discussions about governance and finances and management did not take place because the scheduling had to take place first," Mr. Harth said. "The danger of compromising our artistic profiles was paramount."

Now, with the Philharmonic's return to the fold, Lincoln Center appears to have the upper hand. In interviews, however, officials did not gloat but welcomed the Philharmonic.

"It's an original constituent of Lincoln Center, and we're obviously pleased that they want to remain," said Bruce Crawford, the chairman of Lincoln Center.

Over all, the Philharmonic's decision to stay appears to be a boon for Lincoln Center. The center gets to keep its resident orchestra with its attendant prestige and established donor base. It avoids the public relations problem of having two prominent constituent groups decamp, given that the New York City Opera has declared its hope to move to the World Trade Center site.

Lincoln Center can continue to rely on the $2.5 million to $3 million the Philharmonic brings in every year in rental income, and it will not have to seek another group to fill the hall and replace that revenue.

Some would argue that the Philharmonic's decision to remain is unfortunate for that very reason. The departure of the orchestra, which has long been criticized for playing it safe with a classical repertory, might have forced the center to experiment with more unorthodox programming and expand its reach to younger, less conventional audiences.

Lincoln Center initially spoke of the orchestra's planned departure in 2006 as an opportunity to present more varied programming in Avery Fisher Hall and had begun talks with other orchestras to that end.

Whether all is forgiven remains to be seen. Lincoln Center said it planned to re-evaluate the orchestra's constituency agreement, suggesting that it might make the terms tougher. "The constituency agreement between the Philharmonic and Lincoln Center is a contract that states that in exchange for certain privileges and obligations, the Philharmonic won't perform anywhere else in New York through 2011," Mr. Crawford said. "We'll sit down and talk about privileges and obligations and work things out for the future."

At the top of the list is the renovation of Avery Fisher Hall. Lincoln Center's ambitious redevelopment project — once put at $1.5 billion but estimated at no more than $800 million — had been stalled in part by uncertainty about Avery Fisher Hall.

The idea of razing the building and starting from scratch has already been rejected as too costly. In addition, the Avery Fisher family had threatened legal action to keep the name. So the Philharmonic must content itself with reconfiguring the auditorium within the existing structure, with no guarantee that the acoustics will be improved. Any renovation means the orchestra must find a temporary home, and at one time the Seventh Regiment Armory on Park Avenue at 67th Street was considered a possibility.

Zarin Mehta, executive director of the Philharmonic, said the orchestra had yet to turn its attention to the renovation. "We don't know what's going to happen vis-à-vis the redevelopment plans at Lincoln Center," he said. "So we have to get up to speed."

Raising money for the hall's renovation is expected to be difficult. An initial exploration of the Philharmonic board's support was disappointing, with trustees unwilling or unable to make significant contributions.

Before the Philharmonic announced plans to leave, the orchestra and Lincoln Center had agreed to raise money jointly. Lincoln Center officials said they expected that arrangement to continue but said they would be open to alternatives that might be more favorable to the Philharmonic.

"It's going to take a while for us to resume conversations and establish a renewed working relationship," said Reynold Levy, the president of Lincoln Center. "One that will entail both operating discussions and capital planning discussions. We really need to reassess."

[mke]

Greg Sandow's rejoinder:
http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/

Egg on the face

Today's news about Carnegie Hall and the New York Philharmonic is amazing, though not exactly a surprise. Right from the start, as I wrote in my Wall Street Journal piece on the proposed merger, the directors of the two organizations talked very differently about what the merger meant. For Robert Harth, at Carnegie Hall, the merger was an opportunity for adventurous programming. For Zarin Mehta, at the Philharmonic, the merger was all about orchestral imperatives -- the Philharmonic's need to own the hall it played in, and of course the delight of Carnegie's better acoustics. The two men seemed so far apart in their understanding of what they were doing that it was hard to believe they'd been talking (as both told me) for months.

And now the merger falls apart. The public statements are all very reasonable -- everybody learned from the experience, profited from the merger discussions, and now they all can reaffirm their core values. But if you ask me, Carnegie Hall and the Philharmonic both look dumb. One issue, as anybody could have guessed beforehand, was how to accomodate all the concerts the Philharmonic gives each year with Carnegie's strong and diverse schedule. To quote one published story:

The Philharmonic's executive director, Zarin Mehta, said in a telephone interview that the main reason the merger did not succeed is that Carnegie Hall could not accommodate the number of concerts the orchestra plays each season, between 120 and 130.

How could it take all these months to figure that out? And how could the two organizations have announced plans to merge -- actually announce that the meger was a done deal, with everything set except for the details -- without settling such an obvious issue before the announcement was made? I can barely believe it.

One problem, I think, was the top-down process of the merger. Even the Carnegie and Philharmonic boards of directors didn't know about the plans until the public announcement. The discussions seemed to take place between Zarin Mehta and Robert Harth, but even more importantly between Sanford Weill and Paul Guenther, the heads of the Carnegie and Philharmonic boards. When the announcement was made, a lot of key people were taken by surprise.

There surely was a better way to do this -- and in fact, far away from New York, the Utah Symphony and the Utah Opera merged, and did find a better way to work it out. Granted, they had an easier task, because while the opera was healthy, the symphony wasn't, and had three major staff vacancies, including the top job of executive director. So the two groups could merge under the leadership of the opera's executive director, with no prospect of any serious power struggle.

Still, there could have been problems. So rather than simply announce the merger, the two groups announced their intention to merge, setting a date months in the future for a vote by the two boards. By the time the vote came around, all the issues involved in the merger had been thoroughly discussed, both in private and in public. The vote was strongly in favor of merging, but even board members who'd been opposed to it offered, after they'd lost the vote, to help the merger in any way they could.

This, in other words, was a merger accomplished in public, with lots of good feeling, instead of in private, with lots of bad feeling and suspicion. Maybe things can't be done that way in New York -- maybe the interests at stake are just too massive, and maybe the players (especially the powers on both boards) are just too corporate -- but a little more openness might have saved Carnegie Hall and the New York Philharmonic from what now looks like a major embarrassment.