August 2008 Archives
I get excited whenever someone comments on this blog. People are engaged and want to brainstorm about marketing the arts, three cheers! One scary guy did comment on the Contact field and e-yelled at me, saying I should find a shrink and/or a husband to burden with my problems rather than airing them in a public forum, but other than that, all of the comments have been constructive and interesting, I think. [Naturally that one comment led me to a sitcom-esque fantasy sequence flash in which I see a normal shrink every week and say things like,"The New York Philharmonic annoyed me yesterday because they sent a hardcopy mailing to advertise an online contest for a digital music player. I just get really frustrated by both the killing of trees and the total disconnect." And then the shrink would say, "Amanda we talked about this last week: you should be encouraged by the fact that they know about iPods!"]
I digress. So two, three, four comments on a blog post are exciting to me; tiny little baby steps to building a national arts community, if only online. But then I find out that Parterre Box ((shakes fist at the heavens)) entries often get hundreds of comments!! I've been served. An excerpt from Matthew Horner's interview over here received 89-comments-and-counting over there. I'm not really shaking my fist at the heavens, but rather applauding the mainstream levels of participation in a blog devoted to opera and the opera industry; I thought that number of comments was reserved for Perez Hilton & Co.. So much for the popular notion that die-hard opera fans are old-world and technology-less - they blog, they comment! Neither Alex Ross nor Terry Teachout have comment fields on their blogs, but I suspect if they did they could garner similar results.
Results like this, perhaps:
OK, perhaps that's another sitcom-esque fantasy sequence flash, but a girl can dream.
Update, 8/28 10:01 am: 104 comments!
I digress. So two, three, four comments on a blog post are exciting to me; tiny little baby steps to building a national arts community, if only online. But then I find out that Parterre Box ((shakes fist at the heavens)) entries often get hundreds of comments!! I've been served. An excerpt from Matthew Horner's interview over here received 89-comments-and-counting over there. I'm not really shaking my fist at the heavens, but rather applauding the mainstream levels of participation in a blog devoted to opera and the opera industry; I thought that number of comments was reserved for Perez Hilton & Co.. So much for the popular notion that die-hard opera fans are old-world and technology-less - they blog, they comment! Neither Alex Ross nor Terry Teachout have comment fields on their blogs, but I suspect if they did they could garner similar results.
Results like this, perhaps:
OK, perhaps that's another sitcom-esque fantasy sequence flash, but a girl can dream.Update, 8/28 10:01 am: 104 comments!
In what seems to be the theme of the week here on Life's a Pitch, I'd like to give my own glowing review of Vivien Schweitzer's review of the Emerson String Quartet. I actually worked on the ESQ concert at Joe's Pub, so throw that layer on the fire, too.
First, word up to The New York Times for approving the double review of a concert at Joe's Pub and a concert at Lincoln Center the following evening. What better opportunity to explore the similarities and differences in both the concert-going and performance experiences than reviewing two concerts (of the same artist/group) in drastically different spaces, in a single review. Could this mean the start of The Era of the Concept Review? Here's hoping.
Second, I sincerely enjoyed Schweitzer's casual but smart and clean style. Quoting WQXR radio presenter Elliott Forrest's analysis of the ESQ's 32-year career as a group ("like a marriage, but without the sex"), likening listening to chamber music at Avery Fisher to "voyeurism" and - a subject near and dear to my heart - commenting on the rigid concert-going experience at the usual halls:
The review also gave context and background to chamber music itself without being preachy. While the word "chamber" is in the genre name, we often forget the art form's origins in our contemporary presentations. (Ironically, of course, a place should be treated as, or should literally be, a "living room" when chamber music is being performed.)
First, word up to The New York Times for approving the double review of a concert at Joe's Pub and a concert at Lincoln Center the following evening. What better opportunity to explore the similarities and differences in both the concert-going and performance experiences than reviewing two concerts (of the same artist/group) in drastically different spaces, in a single review. Could this mean the start of The Era of the Concept Review? Here's hoping.
Second, I sincerely enjoyed Schweitzer's casual but smart and clean style. Quoting WQXR radio presenter Elliott Forrest's analysis of the ESQ's 32-year career as a group ("like a marriage, but without the sex"), likening listening to chamber music at Avery Fisher to "voyeurism" and - a subject near and dear to my heart - commenting on the rigid concert-going experience at the usual halls:
These low-key settings offer newcomers and cognoscenti a chance to relax away from the sometimes crotchety atmosphere of major halls, where concertgoers may become hapless victims of the Stare -- the withering look of disgust directed at a listener who can't stifle a sneeze or inadvertently claps at the wrong moment. Before a concert at Avery Fisher Hall last spring, a stern-faced patron admonished me not to "treat the place like a living room." My sin, apparently, was placing my jacket incorrectly on my seat.Love the "apparently" and love the guy who lectures the Times critic.
The review also gave context and background to chamber music itself without being preachy. While the word "chamber" is in the genre name, we often forget the art form's origins in our contemporary presentations. (Ironically, of course, a place should be treated as, or should literally be, a "living room" when chamber music is being performed.)
The concert [at Avery Fisher] finished with an amiable rendition of Schubert's beloved "Trout" Quintet, with the pianist Jonathan Biss and the bass player Timothy Cobb. This work can make even curmudgeons smile, and the performance illuminated its cheery optimism and soothing melodies.
But it probably would have been even better at Joe's Pub, a space more in the spirit of the private hausmusik concerts for which Schubert and Mozart composed chamber works. Mozart wrote his arrangement of fugues from Bach's "Well-Tempered Clavier" for Sunday-afternoon gatherings at the Vienna home of Baron Gottfried van Swieten, a connoisseur who championed the music of Bach (which, surprisingly, was given short shrift at the time).
While The Bartok and Beers Movement isn't exactly breaking news anymore, the juxtaposition of reviews of the same artists at Avery Fisher and Joe's Pub in The New York Times actually is. It takes a village to change an industry, as they say.
I think an important moment in the industry happened at my "day" job today: we got rid of the New Media section of a marketing report, and instead moved topics like e-cards, banner ads and blogs into the community outreach, advertising and press sections.
I got kind of emotional about the whole thing. It was embarrassing.
Now if someone would just remove the "adventurous" label from contemporary music programming...
I got kind of emotional about the whole thing. It was embarrassing.
Now if someone would just remove the "adventurous" label from contemporary music programming...
I'm generally very pleased to be alive in 2008. For example, just this morning I got an interview request from Time Out Beijing. Who knew. It appears to be a monthly publication rather than a weekly publication, but other than that, quite similar to Time Outs in other nations. Speaking of nations, this month has an article about GaydarNation coming to China; What Would Mao Zedong Do (WWMZD) about that?
Another reason I enjoy 2008 is that we've reached a point where journalistic criticism has been diluted (or, as some might argue, polluted) to a point where there cannot be a final word on an album, concert or artist in general; too many people have platforms on which to comment, she says as she blogs.
Composer/performer Nico Muhly posted one long paragraph on his blog last Friday that made my head explode a little, in a good way. An excerpt:
Is an artist allowed (" ") to comment on his reviews? Sure. Artists (and family members/friends of artists) have written Letters to the Editors disagreeing with critics for years: artists/fans/family members having blogs just adds immediacy. Is a critic allowed to comment on the other press an artist has gotten? Apparently. It seems to me a bit like referencing ex boyfriends in your current relationship, but who am I to judge a writer's...style.
What I'm more interested in here, though, is what defines The Journalist in 2008. Nico writes as well or better as/than most journalists, certainly knows as much about music, and majored in English at Columbia. Does his opinion on albums (if not on his own work) matter less, or differently, because journalism is not his profession of choice? His blog readership is a fraction of Pitchfork's, certainly, but the hundreds of people who read it daily trust his voice and perspective, and he reports on that which he has experienced. Does this a journalist make? Or simply a tastemaker. Didn't they used to be one and the same?
Whose opinion on art do you trust in your daily life? I've found that I trust distinct voices over publications or platforms. I know I will always hate the musicals Person X loves, and love the musicals Person Y hates. I write "Persons" X and Y rather than "Critics", because so-called credentials aren't especially relevant to me anymore, personally. Perhaps I'm in the minority, or, more likely, perhaps it's split down the middle. "I will not buy Mothertongue because (A) Pitchfork told me not to (B) Jayson Greene told me not to (C) Nico Muhly has gotten too much press and I'm going to personally punish him by withholding my $9.99. Please circle (A) (B) or (C)." Is there even a (D)? "(D) I listened and decided for myself that I didn't like it."
I went to an interview-ish thing recently during which the interviewer kept telling me that publicity was about "influencing the influencers". After listening to me digress for ten-odd minutes about who I thought said "influencers" were [SPOILER ALERT! They weren't necessarily journalists], he raised his eyebrows and said, "My, you have quite the broad definition of what a publicist does." I suppose I do. But then Jayson Green is an online official "influencer", and his means of influence (a review) was influenced by print media official influencers, which was then picked up by a third, artist-reporter-blogger influencer. So you tell me what a publicist's job in 2008 is.
Epilogue: A publicist has now commented on an artist's criticism of a journalist's criticism of his getting too much press. Doing my part in the circle of life. Nants ingonyama bagithi Baba!
Another reason I enjoy 2008 is that we've reached a point where journalistic criticism has been diluted (or, as some might argue, polluted) to a point where there cannot be a final word on an album, concert or artist in general; too many people have platforms on which to comment, she says as she blogs.
Composer/performer Nico Muhly posted one long paragraph on his blog last Friday that made my head explode a little, in a good way. An excerpt:
...I got a very mean review on Pitchfork by Jayson Greene (whom I think had interviewed me before), which is too bad, because it would have been nice to have a good one from them...What's particularly unfortunate about that review, though, is that it obsesses over other press coverage that I've gotten, of which, of course, I am neither author nor source. I'm happy to be evaluated by the notes, the rhythms, the sounds, and the textures but not by something that's been done to me, like my height or the way I spell my name...Here, I am being called to task for the way the music relates to the press materials, which I suppose is "fair" but not necessarily in what we call good faith...An artist gets a bad review for having too much press, and then comments on the points of criticism on his own blog. (((boom))). 2008, man.
Is an artist allowed (" ") to comment on his reviews? Sure. Artists (and family members/friends of artists) have written Letters to the Editors disagreeing with critics for years: artists/fans/family members having blogs just adds immediacy. Is a critic allowed to comment on the other press an artist has gotten? Apparently. It seems to me a bit like referencing ex boyfriends in your current relationship, but who am I to judge a writer's...style.
What I'm more interested in here, though, is what defines The Journalist in 2008. Nico writes as well or better as/than most journalists, certainly knows as much about music, and majored in English at Columbia. Does his opinion on albums (if not on his own work) matter less, or differently, because journalism is not his profession of choice? His blog readership is a fraction of Pitchfork's, certainly, but the hundreds of people who read it daily trust his voice and perspective, and he reports on that which he has experienced. Does this a journalist make? Or simply a tastemaker. Didn't they used to be one and the same?
Whose opinion on art do you trust in your daily life? I've found that I trust distinct voices over publications or platforms. I know I will always hate the musicals Person X loves, and love the musicals Person Y hates. I write "Persons" X and Y rather than "Critics", because so-called credentials aren't especially relevant to me anymore, personally. Perhaps I'm in the minority, or, more likely, perhaps it's split down the middle. "I will not buy Mothertongue because (A) Pitchfork told me not to (B) Jayson Greene told me not to (C) Nico Muhly has gotten too much press and I'm going to personally punish him by withholding my $9.99. Please circle (A) (B) or (C)." Is there even a (D)? "(D) I listened and decided for myself that I didn't like it."
I went to an interview-ish thing recently during which the interviewer kept telling me that publicity was about "influencing the influencers". After listening to me digress for ten-odd minutes about who I thought said "influencers" were [SPOILER ALERT! They weren't necessarily journalists], he raised his eyebrows and said, "My, you have quite the broad definition of what a publicist does." I suppose I do. But then Jayson Green is an online official "influencer", and his means of influence (a review) was influenced by print media official influencers, which was then picked up by a third, artist-reporter-blogger influencer. So you tell me what a publicist's job in 2008 is.
Epilogue: A publicist has now commented on an artist's criticism of a journalist's criticism of his getting too much press. Doing my part in the circle of life. Nants ingonyama bagithi Baba!
Each week (usually on Fridays, but, on occasion...Mondays), I'll post an interview with someone far
more
knowledgeable than myself on specific marketing and publicity
subjects. This week, vocal manager Matthew Horner on the changing faces (and bodies) of opera and how important (or not) marketing materials are at the onset of a singer's career.
Matthew A. Horner is Vice President and Artist Manager at IMG Artists, New York. Previously, he was an Artist Manager at Columbia Artist Management (CAMI). He does frequent classes for singers at Yale University, The Curtis Institute and Bard College, among others. Matthew has also served as a judge for numerous vocal competitions including the McCammon Competition, the Palm Beach Opera Competition, the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions.
How has artist mainstream marketability affected the opera industry? Do you think the introduction of The Met HD broadcasts (close-ups, interviews) sparked this change?
Quite a bit. The Met's increasing visibility in cinecasts and HD transmissions, on PBS and international television (after several years of none of this) has made it important for them to cast a certain "look" and emphasize artists who are appealing and telegenic. The other houses both domestically and internationally are following their lead, so this will be a trend for some while to come.
Do you think the industry is moving toward hot-people-only, or will good singing always prevail over looks?
I view it cyclically. One sees even in the accounts of the Met under Edward Johnson and Rudolf Bing that the public believed that certain singers were being hired more for their looks than for the vocal goods they posessed or didn't. I think that there will be an increased desire in the future to hear great singing again. Certain operas rise and fall on having the requisite vocal chops, and no degree of theatrical energy or physical glamor can replace this. We will have the "hot" mentality for a period while cinecasts are still popular, but eventually one can only substitute so much before turning out a compromised artistic product.
Have we reached a point where marketing is so important that artistic directors will actually think about an artist's website/headshots/press profile when casting?
If not their materials, they'll certainly consider looks and have for some time. The materials are important, but most casting directors can see through puffery rather easily and still need some degree of substantive output before casting anyone.
How often do people approach you for management?
My colleagues and I get about a half dozen requests a week. I don't believe that anyone at IMG has ever taken on anyone who sent unsolicited materials.
What is the usual track for opera management? What is the next step after participating in a young artist program, for example?
Among American singers, it's fairly common to find your manager while in a young artists' program though some are already managed when they begin. The Met usually restricts their young artists from being managed for the first two years of the program. The "next step" depends largely on the individual. Some artists are ready to work right away after a program; others still need further work on various things. It's not uncommon especially for young artists to need more stage experience in principal roles.
How could an artist best market him or herself to a manager? I realize a lot of it is referral, but what do you look for insofar as materials and "package" at the onset of a working relationship?
Certainly at the top level of the profession referrals are critical. While we are always impressed by well-organized materials and elegant presentation, it doesn't replace talent for us.
Should aspiring opera singers be concerned about a lack of press? It's hard to get press even for top singers. Should younger singers focus on reviews from small, local publications, or does press not matter as much at that point?
Having reviews is always important. Anything like a feature, profile or interview is usually the purview of more established artists. We don't put an enormous amount of stock in tiny papers or local critics outside the major centers.
What are the benefits of being managed by a big company like IMG Artists versus a smaller agency?
This is a discussion that could last for pages, but one thing that jumps to mind is information flow. Because we are a large and international company, we have access to more information than most and can use this to our clients' advantage.
Switching gears, how important have sponsorships become in the opera world? Are all the top singers promoting some kind of product? Are we moving toward product-placement in operas, or other such craziness?
It's been around for some time, and there are a number of top stars who are associated with fashion, jewelery, cell phone companies and the like. Like it or not, the audience for opera will remain limited, and thus there will never be a huge amount of interest from the commercial world for singer endorsements.
Will there be a backlash against this - where is the artistry when we're worried about who's promoting which watch - or will the industry just keep on trucking in that direction, like basically every other industry?
Again, it goes in cycles. There has always been some degree of this and in fact singers' place in the world was much more visible in the past. I think there is some backlash against it already within the business.
What do think is the most important thing to happen to opera in the past year?
The Met's increased visibility has been very major and has "trickled down" to other companies as well. The company's national profile has really been helped by both cinecasts and the return to multiple telecasts on PBS.
What do you think is the most important thing a singer at any level can do to advance his or her career?
SING WELL!
Matthew A. Horner is Vice President and Artist Manager at IMG Artists, New York. Previously, he was an Artist Manager at Columbia Artist Management (CAMI). He does frequent classes for singers at Yale University, The Curtis Institute and Bard College, among others. Matthew has also served as a judge for numerous vocal competitions including the McCammon Competition, the Palm Beach Opera Competition, the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions. How has artist mainstream marketability affected the opera industry? Do you think the introduction of The Met HD broadcasts (close-ups, interviews) sparked this change?
Quite a bit. The Met's increasing visibility in cinecasts and HD transmissions, on PBS and international television (after several years of none of this) has made it important for them to cast a certain "look" and emphasize artists who are appealing and telegenic. The other houses both domestically and internationally are following their lead, so this will be a trend for some while to come.
Do you think the industry is moving toward hot-people-only, or will good singing always prevail over looks?
I view it cyclically. One sees even in the accounts of the Met under Edward Johnson and Rudolf Bing that the public believed that certain singers were being hired more for their looks than for the vocal goods they posessed or didn't. I think that there will be an increased desire in the future to hear great singing again. Certain operas rise and fall on having the requisite vocal chops, and no degree of theatrical energy or physical glamor can replace this. We will have the "hot" mentality for a period while cinecasts are still popular, but eventually one can only substitute so much before turning out a compromised artistic product.
Have we reached a point where marketing is so important that artistic directors will actually think about an artist's website/headshots/press profile when casting?
If not their materials, they'll certainly consider looks and have for some time. The materials are important, but most casting directors can see through puffery rather easily and still need some degree of substantive output before casting anyone.
How often do people approach you for management?
My colleagues and I get about a half dozen requests a week. I don't believe that anyone at IMG has ever taken on anyone who sent unsolicited materials.
What is the usual track for opera management? What is the next step after participating in a young artist program, for example?
Among American singers, it's fairly common to find your manager while in a young artists' program though some are already managed when they begin. The Met usually restricts their young artists from being managed for the first two years of the program. The "next step" depends largely on the individual. Some artists are ready to work right away after a program; others still need further work on various things. It's not uncommon especially for young artists to need more stage experience in principal roles.
How could an artist best market him or herself to a manager? I realize a lot of it is referral, but what do you look for insofar as materials and "package" at the onset of a working relationship?
Certainly at the top level of the profession referrals are critical. While we are always impressed by well-organized materials and elegant presentation, it doesn't replace talent for us.
Should aspiring opera singers be concerned about a lack of press? It's hard to get press even for top singers. Should younger singers focus on reviews from small, local publications, or does press not matter as much at that point?
Having reviews is always important. Anything like a feature, profile or interview is usually the purview of more established artists. We don't put an enormous amount of stock in tiny papers or local critics outside the major centers.
What are the benefits of being managed by a big company like IMG Artists versus a smaller agency?
This is a discussion that could last for pages, but one thing that jumps to mind is information flow. Because we are a large and international company, we have access to more information than most and can use this to our clients' advantage.
Switching gears, how important have sponsorships become in the opera world? Are all the top singers promoting some kind of product? Are we moving toward product-placement in operas, or other such craziness?
It's been around for some time, and there are a number of top stars who are associated with fashion, jewelery, cell phone companies and the like. Like it or not, the audience for opera will remain limited, and thus there will never be a huge amount of interest from the commercial world for singer endorsements.
Will there be a backlash against this - where is the artistry when we're worried about who's promoting which watch - or will the industry just keep on trucking in that direction, like basically every other industry?
Again, it goes in cycles. There has always been some degree of this and in fact singers' place in the world was much more visible in the past. I think there is some backlash against it already within the business.
What do think is the most important thing to happen to opera in the past year?
The Met's increased visibility has been very major and has "trickled down" to other companies as well. The company's national profile has really been helped by both cinecasts and the return to multiple telecasts on PBS.
What do you think is the most important thing a singer at any level can do to advance his or her career?
SING WELL!
That's right, folks - she's still in the race.
Cast your vote here.
Clearly, Hilary is the best artist for the job. Yes we can.
I wonder if there will be a borderline-racist New Yorker cover, with Dudamel as a cartoon Che Guevera and Natalie Dessay as Marie Antoinette.
Maybe Murray Perahia's camp will run TV ads about Rolando Villazon's "celebrity status", and Anna Netrebko will respond.
Will Angela Merkel let Paul Lewis give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate, or will that make him look too much like J.F.K.?
And the real question on everyone's mind: will Ivan Fischer will choose Gerald Finley or Marc-Andrew Hamelin as his running mate. Finley might get him the diction vote, but would the choice of Hamelin mean a The Rest is Noise endorsement??
I can't wait for the Olympics to end so the media can finally turn its attention to the real campaign at hand: Gramophone Artist of the Year.
Cast your vote here.
Clearly, Hilary is the best artist for the job. Yes we can.
I wonder if there will be a borderline-racist New Yorker cover, with Dudamel as a cartoon Che Guevera and Natalie Dessay as Marie Antoinette.
Maybe Murray Perahia's camp will run TV ads about Rolando Villazon's "celebrity status", and Anna Netrebko will respond.
Will Angela Merkel let Paul Lewis give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate, or will that make him look too much like J.F.K.?
And the real question on everyone's mind: will Ivan Fischer will choose Gerald Finley or Marc-Andrew Hamelin as his running mate. Finley might get him the diction vote, but would the choice of Hamelin mean a The Rest is Noise endorsement??
I can't wait for the Olympics to end so the media can finally turn its attention to the real campaign at hand: Gramophone Artist of the Year.
Now I've got your attention.
One thing that has struck me about this year's Olympics is the quickness with which the NBC correspondents interview athletes after races/performances/matches. Good results and bad, the large majority of Olympic athletes agree to be interviewed. What good...sports they all are. (Poor Lolo Jones was even interviewed last night after not medaling in the hurdle. Props to her for having a great domain name, by way.) It's almost uncomfortable to watch an interview so soon after an event: must the runners still be panting? The swimmers dripping wet? The answer is yes, I suppose. The Olympics are exciting, and NBC wants to capture that excitement in an interview the minute people get out of the pool. Wait until they dry off and decompress, and you've missed the moment.
Assuming TV is not an option (sigh), how can the media capture the moment of a performance just after it happens? Maybe a radio station can set up backstage, live-broadcast the concert, and then interview the artist live as soon as he or she walks off the stage. Perhaps the station ask the artist a quick question or two before he/she goes back out on stage for the second bow or encore: a breathless soundbyte with the audience applauding in the background. Similarly, why do all print interviews have to happen in the weeks/days leading up to a concert? To sell tickets, presumably, but does that necessarily make for the best journalism? Why not arrange an interview directly following the concert - backstage, even. How did the artist feel about the performance? What was the orchestra like? Did the woman in the front row play with her hair the whole concert?
Since video material is generally considered to be the most powerful, allow bloggers and their Flip cameras backstage. They can conduct an interview just before the artist goes on, post it on their blog, wait through the performance, and then post another interview when the artist comes off stage. Have computers in the lobby so audience members can watch the pre- and post concert interviews online, juxtaposed with the live concert they are about to/just experience(d). Additionally, use the same Flip camera and go out in the lobby to interview audience members; what does an audience member feel right before a concert is about to start vs. what the performing artist feels? After the concert?
None of these interviews need to be conducted by the media, by the way. An orchestra or presenter marketing department can record pre- and post concert interviews with artists for their websites as well; a great way to encourage concert-goers to visit their websites and, hopefully, see what other concerts they have to offer!
One thing that has struck me about this year's Olympics is the quickness with which the NBC correspondents interview athletes after races/performances/matches. Good results and bad, the large majority of Olympic athletes agree to be interviewed. What good...sports they all are. (Poor Lolo Jones was even interviewed last night after not medaling in the hurdle. Props to her for having a great domain name, by way.) It's almost uncomfortable to watch an interview so soon after an event: must the runners still be panting? The swimmers dripping wet? The answer is yes, I suppose. The Olympics are exciting, and NBC wants to capture that excitement in an interview the minute people get out of the pool. Wait until they dry off and decompress, and you've missed the moment.
Assuming TV is not an option (sigh), how can the media capture the moment of a performance just after it happens? Maybe a radio station can set up backstage, live-broadcast the concert, and then interview the artist live as soon as he or she walks off the stage. Perhaps the station ask the artist a quick question or two before he/she goes back out on stage for the second bow or encore: a breathless soundbyte with the audience applauding in the background. Similarly, why do all print interviews have to happen in the weeks/days leading up to a concert? To sell tickets, presumably, but does that necessarily make for the best journalism? Why not arrange an interview directly following the concert - backstage, even. How did the artist feel about the performance? What was the orchestra like? Did the woman in the front row play with her hair the whole concert?
Since video material is generally considered to be the most powerful, allow bloggers and their Flip cameras backstage. They can conduct an interview just before the artist goes on, post it on their blog, wait through the performance, and then post another interview when the artist comes off stage. Have computers in the lobby so audience members can watch the pre- and post concert interviews online, juxtaposed with the live concert they are about to/just experience(d). Additionally, use the same Flip camera and go out in the lobby to interview audience members; what does an audience member feel right before a concert is about to start vs. what the performing artist feels? After the concert?
None of these interviews need to be conducted by the media, by the way. An orchestra or presenter marketing department can record pre- and post concert interviews with artists for their websites as well; a great way to encourage concert-goers to visit their websites and, hopefully, see what other concerts they have to offer!
Apparently, the Broadway Godspell revival ad campaign wasn't as good as I thought it was.
In the third paragraph of his August 6th article in The New York Times, Dan Wakin quotes Opera Omnia artistic director Wesley Chinn's press release:
Well, that's new. Artists and administrators alike have confessed to me that they wrote their own press releases for concerts, CD releases and career moves, admissions always ending with "[dot dot dot] but please don't tell anyone." One artist told me she created a Gmail account under a fake name and pretended to be her own publicist, complete with e mail exchanges such as, "Yes, let me check on Ms. X's availability for that interview."
Why do we feel the need to operate under the paper-thin veil of objectiveness? Artists pay me to represent them to the media; does that make me more or less objective than an artist representing him or herself? Perhaps slightly more, provided you give me the benefit of the outside-perspective doubt, but I'm far from an unbiased presenter of information; hardly a veritable "Wikipedia of media relations".
The Opera Omnia/Dan Wakin piece represents a breaking down of the fourth wall of media outreach. Not only did an artistic director clearly state that he was writing his own press release, but a New York Times writer goes and includes this detail in his feature! In fact, that aspect of the press release seems to be the very thing that led Wakin to research the opera company further. Would the affect (and result) have been the same if Chinn had simply written his release in the first person? "My company, Opera Omnia, will be performing at...on...at this time."? Despite the quality of writing or substance of presentation, a first-person narrative in a press release still has an amateur air, but why? Is it better to have an exceedingly professional release about a project/artist of lesser quality? Of course not, so why the stigma?
Before I fully put myself out of a career, I will say this: one of a publicist's most important jobs is reaching out to the appropriate critics about the appropriate projects in the appropriate tone. If I know a critic, I'm not going to send him or her the formal "attached please find a media alert..." e mail. Similarly, I wouldn't send a critic a press release about a new music project if he or she had never written a new music review in his/her career. Dan Wakin appreciated the candor, drollness and ultimately the subject matter of the Opera Omnia pitch. Perhaps Wesley Chinn did his research, or perhaps he just got lucky. Either way, there's a hopeful message in this: write press releases in whichever voice or from whichever Gmail account you want, just write them well, don't be afraid to show some personality, and do your homework on the critics.
The first news release quoted the founder and artistic director, Wesley Chinn, as saying, "I can't actually pretend to quote myself in a release I'm writing myself just to satisfy the conventions of press-release style."Fourth paragraph:
If the tongue-in-cheek communiqué was meant to draw attention during the summer doldrums, it worked. But further investigation reveals that Opera Omnia is a serious entry into the ranks of small-bore companies in New York. The troupe, consisting of performers mostly in their 20s and 30s and operating on a tissue-thin budget, plans to stage its first production this month at Le Poisson Rouge (the former Village Gate) on Bleecker Street, starting on Aug. 21.
Well, that's new. Artists and administrators alike have confessed to me that they wrote their own press releases for concerts, CD releases and career moves, admissions always ending with "[dot dot dot] but please don't tell anyone." One artist told me she created a Gmail account under a fake name and pretended to be her own publicist, complete with e mail exchanges such as, "Yes, let me check on Ms. X's availability for that interview."
Why do we feel the need to operate under the paper-thin veil of objectiveness? Artists pay me to represent them to the media; does that make me more or less objective than an artist representing him or herself? Perhaps slightly more, provided you give me the benefit of the outside-perspective doubt, but I'm far from an unbiased presenter of information; hardly a veritable "Wikipedia of media relations".
The Opera Omnia/Dan Wakin piece represents a breaking down of the fourth wall of media outreach. Not only did an artistic director clearly state that he was writing his own press release, but a New York Times writer goes and includes this detail in his feature! In fact, that aspect of the press release seems to be the very thing that led Wakin to research the opera company further. Would the affect (and result) have been the same if Chinn had simply written his release in the first person? "My company, Opera Omnia, will be performing at...on...at this time."? Despite the quality of writing or substance of presentation, a first-person narrative in a press release still has an amateur air, but why? Is it better to have an exceedingly professional release about a project/artist of lesser quality? Of course not, so why the stigma?
Before I fully put myself out of a career, I will say this: one of a publicist's most important jobs is reaching out to the appropriate critics about the appropriate projects in the appropriate tone. If I know a critic, I'm not going to send him or her the formal "attached please find a media alert..." e mail. Similarly, I wouldn't send a critic a press release about a new music project if he or she had never written a new music review in his/her career. Dan Wakin appreciated the candor, drollness and ultimately the subject matter of the Opera Omnia pitch. Perhaps Wesley Chinn did his research, or perhaps he just got lucky. Either way, there's a hopeful message in this: write press releases in whichever voice or from whichever Gmail account you want, just write them well, don't be afraid to show some personality, and do your homework on the critics.
Each week, I'll post an interview with someone far
more
knowledgeable than myself on specific marketing and publicity
subjects. This week, Juilliard masters student (and my assistant!) Allegra Lilly on how prepared she feels Juilliard students are for The Industry post graduation.
Allegra Lilly began playing the harp at age seven and made her solo debut with the Detroit Symphony at age twelve. Recent honors include winning the Anne Adams Award of the American Harp Society, taking third prize in the Concours International de Harpe in Nice, and being invited to substitute with the New York Philharmonic and the Chicago Symphony. Allegra completed her undergraduate studies with Nancy Allen at The Juilliard School in 2007, and will obtain her Master's Degree from Juilliard in 2009.
What is your major at Juilliard?
I'm now finishing my Master's in harp performance, and I did my undergrad there as well.
How much room is there to take music industry classes in a typical schedule over four years?
It depends somewhat on your instrument, because some departments have more rigorous academic requirements. Also, music industry classes are considered graduate curriculum, so undergraduates can only take them in their third or fourth years. But I think everyone has the chance to take at least one music industry class at some point.
How many music industry classes are taught at Juilliard? What kind of subjects are there?
There are only a handful courses that I would consider "music industry classes." One is "The Business of Music," which I took last year. It's taught by Bob Sherman, WQXR host and former New York Times critic, and frankly, I think it should be required of all music students, graduate or otherwise. We learned the essentials of writing a proper bio, press release, and cover letter, and how to choose a good publicity photo. We also had guest speakers who discussed topics like music education, the orchestral audition process, and studio orchestra work, and Anthony Tommasini came in to give us advice on getting critics to come to our performances.
Another option is the "Career Development Seminar," a course in creating performance opportunities and developing audiences. From what I understand, this class covers a lot of the same material as "The Business of Music," but it's run through the school's Career Services Office. There is also a special class, "The Artist and Contracts," which revolves exclusively around the drafting and negotiation of contract agreements.
Finally, there are two courses taught by Greg Sandow, both of which I took last year: "Music Criticism" and "Classical Music in an Age of Pop." The latter was particularly helpful, because we not only talked about the state of the arts world, we discussed what we could do about it, whether it be through careful programming, crossover performance, creative venue choices, and audience interaction - and whether these approaches distracted from the music itself (we decided they didn't have to). Of all of the classes that I've taken at Juilliard, this one was the most realistic about the possibility of having a successful career as a classical musician at a time when audiences seem restless with the same old buttoned-down format.
Are there business classes offered? Graphic design classes? Is there some kind of partnership program with NYU or Columbia for those kinds of courses?
There is one class that offers more help with the straight business side, called "Writing for the Professions." It concentrates on the composition of business documents, like curricula vitae, grant applications, and application letters. As far as I know, there isn't any class on graphic design - otherwise, I would take it! There is an exchange program: if you have perfect grades, you can apply to take one class per semester at Columbia or Barnard (conversely, if a Columbia or Barnard student auditions and is accepted, he or she can take private lessons at Juilliard).
About once a week, the Career Development Office hosts an open "Lunch and Learn" seminar, in which a speaker comes in and gives an hour-long talk on a specific topic (for example, the basics of recording a demo CD, or health insurance for musicians). They're open to any student who wants to attend...and there's free pizza.
What is the career services set-up at Juilliard? At Dartmouth, I remember the head of career "services" directed me to the "Performing Arts Library'", a shelf over his right shoulder that held three books on arts internships printed ca. 1993...
Luckily for me, Juilliard has a Career Services Office that offers a lot of help. For one thing, they field requests for musicians for commercial events around the city. They get a small fee (nothing near what you would pay a manager), and they make sure you're paid well. You can also go in for a one-on-one career consultation, during which the Career Services Director or Assistant Director will review your promotional materials, listen to your ideas, give you advice, and help you write letters. They even provide résumé templates on the Juilliard website. And they send out a subscriber-based free newsletter to alumni, faculty, and students that provides a comprehensive list of arts job openings in both performance and administration, which is exceptionally helpful!
There are some very young students at Juilliard. Are they expected to take music industry classes? Do you personally think they should?
I'm not aware of any business instruction for pre-college students, and the courses offered in the regular school are all electives. Personally, I don't think you're ever too young to know the practical side of your field, and I absolutely think that at least one music industry class should be required of every Juilliard student. It's a lot easier to learn about the business in a classroom than through trial and error in the real world.
Upon graduation, how many Juilliard students do you think would be able to program, market and publicize their own concerts?
I think a lot of Juilliard musicians make the error of assuming that their talent will be enough, that being a Juilliard graduate will open all of the doors. There was an article in The Times a few years back about Juilliard alumni and where they were years after graduation. As I recall, far too many of them had been forced to give up on their musical careers because they simply couldn't make enough money to survive. The sad reality is that even the most exceptional musician will fail without the necessary business sense. And not only that, it takes endless determination and self-assuredness to promote oneself, and only a combination of these qualities (plus luck) will lead to success. Since I don't even know many people who are talented, business-savvy, perseverant, confident, and lucky, I'm forced to say that Juilliard musicians who fit this description are decidedly in the minority.
Upon graduation, how many Juilliard students do you think join orchestras and feel a responsibility to bring that orchestra to a wider audience?
I know a lot of students who feel that responsibility. Over the last five years or so, I've noticed a distinct change in the attitude of young musicians. Whereas they used to feel that pleasing the audience was akin to pandering, they now seem determined to reach out to those who haven't yet discovered classical music. Far more musicians are speaking to the audience during recitals and exploring alternative venues, and most seemed to have expanded their programming horizons. This younger generation is bringing about a truly exciting change in the very atmosphere of the classical music world, something that's appearing to affect the management, programming, and promotion of major symphony orchestras.
Is there marketing support and/or a budget for student recitals?
Yes and no. Any recital that you give as a Juilliard student, even one that isn't presented as fulfillment of a degree requirement, is free both to the student and for the audience. But if, for example, you choose to do something that requires equipment that the school doesn't have, the financial burden is yours to bear. Also, your recital is only promoted if you choose to promote it through your own means. Recitals are listed in the Juilliard Journal and on the school's website, but getting them listed elsewhere is close to impossible. Consequently, school bulletin boards are constantly papered with posters and flyers that range from basic to hilarious to glossy and expensive. Now that everyone is on Facebook, most students use "Events" to post concert info and invite friends, which generally results in a decent turnout.
Are there any students that you know of who did a really great job programming/marketing/publicizing their student recitals? What kinds of things have people done?
Some of the best programming I've seen was at the senior recital of a friend of mine, Brandon Ridenour, who is an outstanding trumpet player. The first half was all pretty standard trumpet repertoire, but the entire second half of his recital consisted of pop works that he had arranged for trumpet and various combinations of instruments. There were two highlights: Radiohead's "Pyramid Song", which gave me chills, and "Take On Me" by A-ha, which was hilarious. I know there are people out there who think that playing anything non-serious spoils the dignity that should surround a classical performance, but I can't see why that should be the case. I was all the more impressed with my friend's playing because he could play so brilliantly in two such different styles.
As far as marketing, a lot of people have discovered the real way to entice an audience: free booze. Still works like a charm. Apart from that, students are pretty limited in the methods they can use to promote their recitals. For one thing, there are only two halls in the building in which recitals are permitted, so there isn't too much to promote on that account. Also, students can only perform repertoire that is approved by their primary teachers, and many Juilliard teachers wouldn't dream of allowing pop music in a required recital (Brandon was lucky in that his teacher was Mark Gould, who is a member of the experimental band Pink Baby Monster in addition to being a classical badass).
How focused are students on finding managers? Most management companies will only take on a few artists a year, if that. Do students think about positioning themselves to attract attention from management companies, or is that something Juilliard navigates for them?
I don't think management is on the radar of the average student. If you're not a string player, a pianist, a singer, or a flutist, it's very difficult to get attention from a manager. I think most people are just focused on making connections in general, and using those connections to get more performance opportunities. The general consensus seems to be that if you have enough of a career that you require a manager, a manager will probably approach you. Juilliard doesn't overtly offer any information about managers, but it's the type of thing you could discuss in a consultation with the Career Services Office.
If you graduated today and wanted to embark on a career as a harp soloist, would you know where to begin?
At this point, I feel like Juilliard has helped me to acquire almost all of the skills and materials I need to start my career, but a lot depends on the opportunities that arise. If a major orchestral job opens up right after I graduate, I would most likely drop everything to prepare for the audition. If not, I might plan for the next international harp competition, because winning would have a huge impact on my potential to book solo performances. In the end, the key thing I've learned about the music industry is the importance of flexibility. If you have resolved only to work as a soloist, you will most likely end up with an instrument that gathers dust in the corner. If you keep an open mind, the music world will be more open to you.
Allegra Lilly began playing the harp at age seven and made her solo debut with the Detroit Symphony at age twelve. Recent honors include winning the Anne Adams Award of the American Harp Society, taking third prize in the Concours International de Harpe in Nice, and being invited to substitute with the New York Philharmonic and the Chicago Symphony. Allegra completed her undergraduate studies with Nancy Allen at The Juilliard School in 2007, and will obtain her Master's Degree from Juilliard in 2009. What is your major at Juilliard?
I'm now finishing my Master's in harp performance, and I did my undergrad there as well.
How much room is there to take music industry classes in a typical schedule over four years?
It depends somewhat on your instrument, because some departments have more rigorous academic requirements. Also, music industry classes are considered graduate curriculum, so undergraduates can only take them in their third or fourth years. But I think everyone has the chance to take at least one music industry class at some point.
How many music industry classes are taught at Juilliard? What kind of subjects are there?
There are only a handful courses that I would consider "music industry classes." One is "The Business of Music," which I took last year. It's taught by Bob Sherman, WQXR host and former New York Times critic, and frankly, I think it should be required of all music students, graduate or otherwise. We learned the essentials of writing a proper bio, press release, and cover letter, and how to choose a good publicity photo. We also had guest speakers who discussed topics like music education, the orchestral audition process, and studio orchestra work, and Anthony Tommasini came in to give us advice on getting critics to come to our performances.
Another option is the "Career Development Seminar," a course in creating performance opportunities and developing audiences. From what I understand, this class covers a lot of the same material as "The Business of Music," but it's run through the school's Career Services Office. There is also a special class, "The Artist and Contracts," which revolves exclusively around the drafting and negotiation of contract agreements.
Finally, there are two courses taught by Greg Sandow, both of which I took last year: "Music Criticism" and "Classical Music in an Age of Pop." The latter was particularly helpful, because we not only talked about the state of the arts world, we discussed what we could do about it, whether it be through careful programming, crossover performance, creative venue choices, and audience interaction - and whether these approaches distracted from the music itself (we decided they didn't have to). Of all of the classes that I've taken at Juilliard, this one was the most realistic about the possibility of having a successful career as a classical musician at a time when audiences seem restless with the same old buttoned-down format.
Are there business classes offered? Graphic design classes? Is there some kind of partnership program with NYU or Columbia for those kinds of courses?
There is one class that offers more help with the straight business side, called "Writing for the Professions." It concentrates on the composition of business documents, like curricula vitae, grant applications, and application letters. As far as I know, there isn't any class on graphic design - otherwise, I would take it! There is an exchange program: if you have perfect grades, you can apply to take one class per semester at Columbia or Barnard (conversely, if a Columbia or Barnard student auditions and is accepted, he or she can take private lessons at Juilliard).
About once a week, the Career Development Office hosts an open "Lunch and Learn" seminar, in which a speaker comes in and gives an hour-long talk on a specific topic (for example, the basics of recording a demo CD, or health insurance for musicians). They're open to any student who wants to attend...and there's free pizza.
What is the career services set-up at Juilliard? At Dartmouth, I remember the head of career "services" directed me to the "Performing Arts Library'", a shelf over his right shoulder that held three books on arts internships printed ca. 1993...
Luckily for me, Juilliard has a Career Services Office that offers a lot of help. For one thing, they field requests for musicians for commercial events around the city. They get a small fee (nothing near what you would pay a manager), and they make sure you're paid well. You can also go in for a one-on-one career consultation, during which the Career Services Director or Assistant Director will review your promotional materials, listen to your ideas, give you advice, and help you write letters. They even provide résumé templates on the Juilliard website. And they send out a subscriber-based free newsletter to alumni, faculty, and students that provides a comprehensive list of arts job openings in both performance and administration, which is exceptionally helpful!
There are some very young students at Juilliard. Are they expected to take music industry classes? Do you personally think they should?
I'm not aware of any business instruction for pre-college students, and the courses offered in the regular school are all electives. Personally, I don't think you're ever too young to know the practical side of your field, and I absolutely think that at least one music industry class should be required of every Juilliard student. It's a lot easier to learn about the business in a classroom than through trial and error in the real world.
Upon graduation, how many Juilliard students do you think would be able to program, market and publicize their own concerts?
I think a lot of Juilliard musicians make the error of assuming that their talent will be enough, that being a Juilliard graduate will open all of the doors. There was an article in The Times a few years back about Juilliard alumni and where they were years after graduation. As I recall, far too many of them had been forced to give up on their musical careers because they simply couldn't make enough money to survive. The sad reality is that even the most exceptional musician will fail without the necessary business sense. And not only that, it takes endless determination and self-assuredness to promote oneself, and only a combination of these qualities (plus luck) will lead to success. Since I don't even know many people who are talented, business-savvy, perseverant, confident, and lucky, I'm forced to say that Juilliard musicians who fit this description are decidedly in the minority.
Upon graduation, how many Juilliard students do you think join orchestras and feel a responsibility to bring that orchestra to a wider audience?
I know a lot of students who feel that responsibility. Over the last five years or so, I've noticed a distinct change in the attitude of young musicians. Whereas they used to feel that pleasing the audience was akin to pandering, they now seem determined to reach out to those who haven't yet discovered classical music. Far more musicians are speaking to the audience during recitals and exploring alternative venues, and most seemed to have expanded their programming horizons. This younger generation is bringing about a truly exciting change in the very atmosphere of the classical music world, something that's appearing to affect the management, programming, and promotion of major symphony orchestras.
Is there marketing support and/or a budget for student recitals?
Yes and no. Any recital that you give as a Juilliard student, even one that isn't presented as fulfillment of a degree requirement, is free both to the student and for the audience. But if, for example, you choose to do something that requires equipment that the school doesn't have, the financial burden is yours to bear. Also, your recital is only promoted if you choose to promote it through your own means. Recitals are listed in the Juilliard Journal and on the school's website, but getting them listed elsewhere is close to impossible. Consequently, school bulletin boards are constantly papered with posters and flyers that range from basic to hilarious to glossy and expensive. Now that everyone is on Facebook, most students use "Events" to post concert info and invite friends, which generally results in a decent turnout.
Are there any students that you know of who did a really great job programming/marketing/publicizing their student recitals? What kinds of things have people done?
Some of the best programming I've seen was at the senior recital of a friend of mine, Brandon Ridenour, who is an outstanding trumpet player. The first half was all pretty standard trumpet repertoire, but the entire second half of his recital consisted of pop works that he had arranged for trumpet and various combinations of instruments. There were two highlights: Radiohead's "Pyramid Song", which gave me chills, and "Take On Me" by A-ha, which was hilarious. I know there are people out there who think that playing anything non-serious spoils the dignity that should surround a classical performance, but I can't see why that should be the case. I was all the more impressed with my friend's playing because he could play so brilliantly in two such different styles.
As far as marketing, a lot of people have discovered the real way to entice an audience: free booze. Still works like a charm. Apart from that, students are pretty limited in the methods they can use to promote their recitals. For one thing, there are only two halls in the building in which recitals are permitted, so there isn't too much to promote on that account. Also, students can only perform repertoire that is approved by their primary teachers, and many Juilliard teachers wouldn't dream of allowing pop music in a required recital (Brandon was lucky in that his teacher was Mark Gould, who is a member of the experimental band Pink Baby Monster in addition to being a classical badass).
How focused are students on finding managers? Most management companies will only take on a few artists a year, if that. Do students think about positioning themselves to attract attention from management companies, or is that something Juilliard navigates for them?
I don't think management is on the radar of the average student. If you're not a string player, a pianist, a singer, or a flutist, it's very difficult to get attention from a manager. I think most people are just focused on making connections in general, and using those connections to get more performance opportunities. The general consensus seems to be that if you have enough of a career that you require a manager, a manager will probably approach you. Juilliard doesn't overtly offer any information about managers, but it's the type of thing you could discuss in a consultation with the Career Services Office.
If you graduated today and wanted to embark on a career as a harp soloist, would you know where to begin?
At this point, I feel like Juilliard has helped me to acquire almost all of the skills and materials I need to start my career, but a lot depends on the opportunities that arise. If a major orchestral job opens up right after I graduate, I would most likely drop everything to prepare for the audition. If not, I might plan for the next international harp competition, because winning would have a huge impact on my potential to book solo performances. In the end, the key thing I've learned about the music industry is the importance of flexibility. If you have resolved only to work as a soloist, you will most likely end up with an instrument that gathers dust in the corner. If you keep an open mind, the music world will be more open to you.
Nope, I'm not going to write about it, but I sure wish the press would!
The Olympics have renewed my fascination with all things surrounding child prodigies and, especially with the games being in China, I wonder why we haven't seen child prodigy athlete vs. child prodigy classical musician press.
Surely there are huge, glaringly obvious similarities: extreme focus on a singular pursuit from a very young age, supportive beyond-supportive-parents (or parental figures), intense training, legendary coaches/teachers, presence of natural gifts, all-consuming travel schedules, physical demands, careers potentially cut short by injury, existence just below the mainstream celebrity line for most....lots of interesting compare/contrast material there. You can't swing a dead Chinese cat without hitting a human "interest" story in NBC's Olympic coverage, so I'm frustrated that there hasn't been a Chinese classical musician/Chinese athlete development piece. Commitment from a national level to developing young talent of all genre? Come on, that's gold! [pun...intended.] Every time the cameras cut to Mama Phelps, I think how intriguing a piece examining successful young athletes'/musicians' parents would be; similarities would certainly cross national boundaries, there. And what better platform than The Olympics to explore where and how prodigies in all areas materialize, since multiple studies have shown that neither geography nor ethnicity appears to matter in sports or classical music.
Wikipedia's List of Child Prodigies is comedy to behold. No Hilary, no Joshua Bell, no Michael Phelps! Gotta love Ruth Ann Kepple, though, "prodigy of facts". Hilary never liked being called a prodigy; in interviews, she often half-jokes that the word originally meant "monster". Young, exceptional athletes aren't called "prodigies", though: the term seems limited to the arts, chess and academics. Why is that? There's also the question of which athlete/musician child prodigies become tops of their fields when they reach adulthood; athletes almost can't, for physical reasons, whereas classical musician prodigies can have forty-plus year careers.
I enjoyed the six minutes of my life that was spent watching a former tennis pro eat "weird Chinese food" in between beach volleyball and synchronized diving, but I do think that exploring the prodigy topic during the Beijing Olympics could potentially shed some really interesting light on both sports and classical music. As usual, in my absolutely performing arts-biased opinion.
The Olympics have renewed my fascination with all things surrounding child prodigies and, especially with the games being in China, I wonder why we haven't seen child prodigy athlete vs. child prodigy classical musician press.
Surely there are huge, glaringly obvious similarities: extreme focus on a singular pursuit from a very young age, supportive beyond-supportive-parents (or parental figures), intense training, legendary coaches/teachers, presence of natural gifts, all-consuming travel schedules, physical demands, careers potentially cut short by injury, existence just below the mainstream celebrity line for most....lots of interesting compare/contrast material there. You can't swing a dead Chinese cat without hitting a human "interest" story in NBC's Olympic coverage, so I'm frustrated that there hasn't been a Chinese classical musician/Chinese athlete development piece. Commitment from a national level to developing young talent of all genre? Come on, that's gold! [pun...intended.] Every time the cameras cut to Mama Phelps, I think how intriguing a piece examining successful young athletes'/musicians' parents would be; similarities would certainly cross national boundaries, there. And what better platform than The Olympics to explore where and how prodigies in all areas materialize, since multiple studies have shown that neither geography nor ethnicity appears to matter in sports or classical music.
Wikipedia's List of Child Prodigies is comedy to behold. No Hilary, no Joshua Bell, no Michael Phelps! Gotta love Ruth Ann Kepple, though, "prodigy of facts". Hilary never liked being called a prodigy; in interviews, she often half-jokes that the word originally meant "monster". Young, exceptional athletes aren't called "prodigies", though: the term seems limited to the arts, chess and academics. Why is that? There's also the question of which athlete/musician child prodigies become tops of their fields when they reach adulthood; athletes almost can't, for physical reasons, whereas classical musician prodigies can have forty-plus year careers.
I enjoyed the six minutes of my life that was spent watching a former tennis pro eat "weird Chinese food" in between beach volleyball and synchronized diving, but I do think that exploring the prodigy topic during the Beijing Olympics could potentially shed some really interesting light on both sports and classical music. As usual, in my absolutely performing arts-biased opinion.
The New York Philharmonic's Facebook group is "secret".
Seriously? The Philharmonic decides who is worthy of their Facebook group? Facebook, a free digital platform that makes access to new things almost too easy, and somehow - somehow - the Philharmonic finds a way to make it exclusive?
Seriously? The Philharmonic decides who is worthy of their Facebook group? Facebook, a free digital platform that makes access to new things almost too easy, and somehow - somehow - the Philharmonic finds a way to make it exclusive?
Oh bless the Godspell Broadway revival ad campaign my soul:
Creepily religious, straightforward and smart. Gets people who already know Godspell excited and people who don't, intrigued. All for the best.
I realize core-classical music doesn't have lyrics to pull from, but I would love to see an ad campaign for a presentation of The Rite of Spring (I know I've used this example before) that uses quotes from all the terrible reviews and then just says "www.carnegiehall.org/ichoserite" at the bottom. Or, "I am delighted to add another unplayable work to the repertoire." - Arnold Schoenberg, 1936, and at the bottom "www.hilaryhahn.com/playable2008".
I (heart) ad campaigns that make you go "hmmm" and check the site for clarity.
Unfortunately, the awesome Godspell ads led me to their lame-o website. Alas, alas, ALAS for you, blind fools!
Creepily religious, straightforward and smart. Gets people who already know Godspell excited and people who don't, intrigued. All for the best.
I realize core-classical music doesn't have lyrics to pull from, but I would love to see an ad campaign for a presentation of The Rite of Spring (I know I've used this example before) that uses quotes from all the terrible reviews and then just says "www.carnegiehall.org/ichoserite" at the bottom. Or, "I am delighted to add another unplayable work to the repertoire." - Arnold Schoenberg, 1936, and at the bottom "www.hilaryhahn.com/playable2008".
I (heart) ad campaigns that make you go "hmmm" and check the site for clarity.
Unfortunately, the awesome Godspell ads led me to their lame-o website. Alas, alas, ALAS for you, blind fools!
My friend Meg joined me at the exceedingly lovely Mostly Maux Arts
Festival's presentation of Ravel, Faure and the-man-of-the-two-hours on
Saturday night. Previously, Meg was my date to Satyagraha at The Met, lured
there by the promise of puppets. Whenever I go to a classical
presentation with a first-timer, I become eminently more aware of the
comedy of errors that is the audience. What a crew. Here are some of
the highlights:
Saturday night, 7:45 pm. We found our seats in the orchestra and sat down without incident, which is more than I can say for the gaggle of men in front of us. AA or A? Are we in AA or A? What's the difference? MM? Does your ticket say MM? Then, as it turned out, an elderly couple in their row was in the completely wrong seats, and a middle-aged set of ladies had tickets in the correct seats but for Friday night, not Saturday night. Cut to two rows in front of us, where not one but three ushers kept trying to seat people (presumably without tickets?) next to this poor woman, who repeatedly said, "This is my husband's seat!" I couldn't hear properly, but I think one usher actually declared, "If he doesn't come soon, he's going to lose his seat!" Oh really? Is that how it works at Avery Fisher? I didn't think it was.
Concert starts, and I lean over to Meg and say, "There's no clapping 'allowed' between movements, but there might as well be because everyone coughs disgustingly." Sure enough, coughing, sniffling, shuffling, page-ripping - a veritable Stockhausen tribute - between every damn movement. Is everyone just saving up the germs for the silence? Are you just coughing because the guy next to you coughed? Are we extras in 28 Days Later?
Transition to the piano concerto. Five to seven minutes of stage reorganization, and then, at the precise moment the pianist sits at the instrument, a hatted woman in stage-seating starts making her way down the staircase! Right-left, right-left, right-left...we're all waiting...right-left. The usher helps her off the stage. And then, one minute later, just as the piece starts, down comes another one! Clunk, clunk, clunk, goes the Laura Ashley-clad broad. Usher helps her off the stage, too.
Intermission. As if the whole first-half ordeal with the seating mishaps and The Ladies Who Lunch making their exits during the piece weren't enough to put you off classical music forever, the outfits on display at intermission would do the trick. Everyone is so dressed-up! When did that happen. Is it because going to a classical concert is a "night-out" and people want to dress-up for it? Is it because tickets are so expensive that folks assume they have to bust out their finest? When people ask me, I always encourage them to wear what they would wear to work, whatever that may be (granted, Amanda Beard has never asked me). I wonder if this can be fashion-policed by venue ads and posters: include photographs of audiences of all ages wearing nice, normal clothes. How many people are avoiding classical music because they assume there's a dress code?
The second half of the concert involved more unabashed and exceedingly distracting rudeness. A woman behind us started opening up a candy. Slowly. Crinkle. Crinkle. Crinkle. Normally, I would chalk that up to someone just being oblivious, but she was laughing while she was doing it! Laughing! If she had been a 22-year-old in jeans, she would have gotten yelled at, but because she's old and sitting in the orchestra, it's OK? The concert ended, and half the people leaped to their feet, not to applaud, but to leave as fast as they could. This was a good concert. Stay another three minutes and applaud.
I had gone to the Batman IMAX earlier that day. The audience was better behaved. I went to a Radiohead concert the night before. That audience was better behaved. The assumption that new, young audiences "wouldn't know how to act" at Lincoln Center is absolutely correct; they wouldn't know how to behave that inappropriately.
Saturday night, 7:45 pm. We found our seats in the orchestra and sat down without incident, which is more than I can say for the gaggle of men in front of us. AA or A? Are we in AA or A? What's the difference? MM? Does your ticket say MM? Then, as it turned out, an elderly couple in their row was in the completely wrong seats, and a middle-aged set of ladies had tickets in the correct seats but for Friday night, not Saturday night. Cut to two rows in front of us, where not one but three ushers kept trying to seat people (presumably without tickets?) next to this poor woman, who repeatedly said, "This is my husband's seat!" I couldn't hear properly, but I think one usher actually declared, "If he doesn't come soon, he's going to lose his seat!" Oh really? Is that how it works at Avery Fisher? I didn't think it was.
Concert starts, and I lean over to Meg and say, "There's no clapping 'allowed' between movements, but there might as well be because everyone coughs disgustingly." Sure enough, coughing, sniffling, shuffling, page-ripping - a veritable Stockhausen tribute - between every damn movement. Is everyone just saving up the germs for the silence? Are you just coughing because the guy next to you coughed? Are we extras in 28 Days Later?
Transition to the piano concerto. Five to seven minutes of stage reorganization, and then, at the precise moment the pianist sits at the instrument, a hatted woman in stage-seating starts making her way down the staircase! Right-left, right-left, right-left...we're all waiting...right-left. The usher helps her off the stage. And then, one minute later, just as the piece starts, down comes another one! Clunk, clunk, clunk, goes the Laura Ashley-clad broad. Usher helps her off the stage, too.
Intermission. As if the whole first-half ordeal with the seating mishaps and The Ladies Who Lunch making their exits during the piece weren't enough to put you off classical music forever, the outfits on display at intermission would do the trick. Everyone is so dressed-up! When did that happen. Is it because going to a classical concert is a "night-out" and people want to dress-up for it? Is it because tickets are so expensive that folks assume they have to bust out their finest? When people ask me, I always encourage them to wear what they would wear to work, whatever that may be (granted, Amanda Beard has never asked me). I wonder if this can be fashion-policed by venue ads and posters: include photographs of audiences of all ages wearing nice, normal clothes. How many people are avoiding classical music because they assume there's a dress code?
The second half of the concert involved more unabashed and exceedingly distracting rudeness. A woman behind us started opening up a candy. Slowly. Crinkle. Crinkle. Crinkle. Normally, I would chalk that up to someone just being oblivious, but she was laughing while she was doing it! Laughing! If she had been a 22-year-old in jeans, she would have gotten yelled at, but because she's old and sitting in the orchestra, it's OK? The concert ended, and half the people leaped to their feet, not to applaud, but to leave as fast as they could. This was a good concert. Stay another three minutes and applaud.
I had gone to the Batman IMAX earlier that day. The audience was better behaved. I went to a Radiohead concert the night before. That audience was better behaved. The assumption that new, young audiences "wouldn't know how to act" at Lincoln Center is absolutely correct; they wouldn't know how to behave that inappropriately.
Each week, I'll post an interview with someone (or someones) far more
knowledgeable than myself on specific marketing and publicity
subjects. This week, American Public Media's National Marketing Manager for classical music Tim Peterson, and Managing Producer of Performance Today Silvester Vicic on the current state of public radio: quite possibly the oldest media supporter of new classical music.
![peterson_t[1].jpg](http://www.artsjournal.com/lifesapitch/peterson_t%5B1%5D.jpg)
Tim J. Peterson joined American Public Media as National Marketing Manager for the Classical and Marketplace portfolios in the fall of 2007. He has over 10 years experience in arts marketing and management, working with numerous organizations including the Minnesota Orchestra, Dallas Theater Center and WaterTower Theater.
![Silvester-Vicic.gif[1].jpg](http://www.artsjournal.com/lifesapitch/Silvester-Vicic.gif%5B1%5D.jpg)
Silvester Vicic has been with American Public Media since the early 90s, and worked with KUSC in Los Angeles and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before that. He is currently the managing producer of Performance Today™ hosted by Fred Child at American Public Media. He is an award-winning producer of programs like A Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, The Composers Datebook. His previous work was as the manager of Classical 24™.
What is the perceived audience for music programming on public radio? The actual audience?
I think the stereotypical audience for classical programming is very much like of a symphony orchestra--white haired and affluent. While that demographic does make up a part of both audiences, the actual audience is much broader. A recent NPR audience survey shows half of classical listeners are between the ages of 25 and 54 and over a third of audiences have annual household incomes under $60,000.
What kinds of stereotypes does public radio have to overcome?
That we're always asking for money. In fact, we try to limit on-air member drives as much as we can. Membership is a vital component of our overall budget and member drives are a key tactic to obtain and retain members. That we're boring, navel-gazers. There may be some of that, but public radio allows its talent relatively free rein in pursuing stories of interest, in creating new and interesting programming and finding people who can feed and even stimulate the voracious appetites of our much-smarter-than-we-are audience.
How is public radio marketed? You're not directly dependent on actual listener numbers, so where is your focus? What kind of budget does public radio have for marketing?
Listener numbers are very important, not only to station missions but to achieving revenue goals. Just like arts organizations want to maximize ticket sales, public radio wants to reach the greatest number of people possible. Larger audiences equate to a larger potential membership base, greater appeal to underwriters and a better case statement for foundations. Public radio is marketed to audiences through many traditional and emerging channels--online, print, outdoor advertising, partnerships with arts organizations, presence at community events, etc. As far as budget, I think the answer is the same as any non-profit--never enough.
What is the mission of public radio? The mission of music programming, specifically, on public radio?
Like any non-profit, each station or distributor has their own mission statement. The mission of American Public Media (the larger owner and operator of public radio stations and the second largest producer of public radio programming) is "to enrich the mind and nourish the spirit, thereby enhancing the lives and expanding the perspectives of our audiences, and assisting them in strengthening their communities." We find that this applies across the board to all of the programming produced by American Public Media.
How do you think public radio fits into people's every day lives?
Listeners depend on public radio for a reliable source of news and information, tuning in throughout the day--at work, at home, in the car. Our intelligent music programming is both trusted source of entertainment hosted by people who communicate the best of what is on the air and also a kind of soundtrack to their day. This is by no means a lowest common denominator statement. Rather it's a reflection of how people live and use the media. We get many letters from people for whom the music we play and the news we share are vital and integral parts of their media consumption.
Thoughts on the XM/Sirius merger? Is satellite radio competition for public radio, or do you think the listeners are totally different?
The company position is outlined here.
XM and Sirius both have their own stations that broadcast public radio content. Again, radio listeners are looking for what suits them at a particular moment. It's not a given that public radio listeners don't listen to satellite radio and vice versa. It's still a relatively fresh delivery system that hasn't really had an impact on terrestrial radio stations. Public radio has been investing in the web and HD Radio, which is another consideration. In some markets, stations are moving much of their classical programming from their main signal to one of their HD signals. Until more people own HD radios, this could place a limit on listener access.
At one point, radio was the only way people heard new music. With so many other ways to hear music now, how has public radio evolved its music programming?
A sizable and growing percentage of public radio's audience comes from people streaming online. Podcasts are a growing way for audiences to listen to programs on their own schedule. Music podcasts are limited at this point due to rights issues and new media usage continues to become a larger issue with musician unions' contracts.
Public radio remains a vital source of music as it provides exclusive opportunities for listeners to hear concerts from throughout the world that will never be available on a recording. In fact, Performance Today, SymphonyCast, Pipedreams and St. Paul Sunday (all from American Public Media) feature "new" music rather prominently. Different local stations will also offer contemporary works as their resources and ethos allow.
Have there been strictly radio concert series? E.g. Bass-baritone Eric Owens (shameless plug) gives a radio-only recital?
Yes. For example, American Public Media's Saint Paul Sunday provides exclusive performances and conversation, recorded in studio, that are available only by listening to the program.
Do you ever ask performing artists to host their own radio shows?
Yes, as a matter of fact. There can be some splendid insights that might not otherwise come about. The difficulty often comes in trying to schedule somebody who has a thriving concert career. It also works to have a performing artist work with an established host, to maintain and enhance the trust relationship between them and the listener. It all depends on how compelling the subject and how articulate the artist is.
What are some of your favorite recent initiatives programming-wise?
I think few people really consider how much classical music is around us in our everyday lives. Performance Today has taken a look at some of these connections including literature, film, even cartoons. In fact, next week the second hour of the show looks at improvisation and classical music with guests Robert Levin, Matthias Maute and Cameron Carpenter.
I've always been a little confused by the different tiers of public radio. There's city, state and national? How does the content work? For example, does WNYC decide if and when they want Morning Edition, or does someone dictate that to them?
Public radio has three main producers of national content-- American Public Media, National Public Radio and Public Radio International, plus other distributors like WFMT in Chicago. Unlike a television station that is affiliated with a particular network, local public radio stations can select programs (such as Morning Edition, Performance Today or Marketplace) from any of the various national distributors. Each station balances national programs to a varying degree with their own local programming. (Sometimes programs start out as local and end up becoming nationally distributed.) The stations themselves can exist individually or be a part of a larger regional or statewide network such as Minnesota Public Radio.
Is there a place where I can find all the classical music content on public radio stations across the country? How would someone in Montana go about finding WNYC's Soundcheck, for example?
The internet has changed how people listen to radio. You don't have to be within the reach of a given frequency to hear a particular program on a particular station. There are websites like Public Radio Fan where listeners can find out what shows are heard when and on what station. If someone doesn't know that Soundcheck, Performance Today, SymphonyCast, or Pipedreams exist it's hard to get that news to a listener. But if their keywords are done right, they can lead the listener to something that fits into what they're looking for at that moment.
What is the life of public radio programming off the airwaves? From the Top and This American Life both have their own TV shows, albeit on very different stations, and A Prairie Home Companion is now a touring show. Is this trend good/bad/ugly? Is it even a trend?
I think the opportunity for public radio programs to reach out in various ways--whether on TV (Showtime's This American Life or PBS's Car Talk cartoon), film (A Prairie Home Companion) or cookbooks (The Splendid Table's How to Eat Supper)--can only serve to increase awareness of the various programs among new audiences. Hopefully that will lead these audiences to not only listen on-air or online to the source program, but also discover what else public radio has to offer. There's no bad or ugly about it. There are many ways that a program or a service tries to get in front of the public...some of it works and some of it doesn't. Public radio programming and connecting with listeners is about a multitude of endeavors. It's on the radio, it's on the web, it's in the public eye at events; we try to go where the listeners are, to give them the opportunity to hear and experience things that are generally not available anywhere else. No, I don't think it's a trend.
Given all the time and resources in the world, what would be your dream classical music one-night-only radio program?
It would be a rolling concert hosted by the world's best radio hosts and featuring the world's greatest and most accessible classical music artists. It would follow the world's time zones from one great concert hall and city to the next, over a 24 hour period. Kind of like an Olympics of classical music that every radio would be tuned to, and that would have so much marketing money behind it that it would be the only topic on everyone's lips.
Tim J. Peterson joined American Public Media as National Marketing Manager for the Classical and Marketplace portfolios in the fall of 2007. He has over 10 years experience in arts marketing and management, working with numerous organizations including the Minnesota Orchestra, Dallas Theater Center and WaterTower Theater.Silvester Vicic has been with American Public Media since the early 90s, and worked with KUSC in Los Angeles and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before that. He is currently the managing producer of Performance Today™ hosted by Fred Child at American Public Media. He is an award-winning producer of programs like A Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, The Composers Datebook. His previous work was as the manager of Classical 24™.What is the perceived audience for music programming on public radio? The actual audience?
I think the stereotypical audience for classical programming is very much like of a symphony orchestra--white haired and affluent. While that demographic does make up a part of both audiences, the actual audience is much broader. A recent NPR audience survey shows half of classical listeners are between the ages of 25 and 54 and over a third of audiences have annual household incomes under $60,000.
What kinds of stereotypes does public radio have to overcome?
That we're always asking for money. In fact, we try to limit on-air member drives as much as we can. Membership is a vital component of our overall budget and member drives are a key tactic to obtain and retain members. That we're boring, navel-gazers. There may be some of that, but public radio allows its talent relatively free rein in pursuing stories of interest, in creating new and interesting programming and finding people who can feed and even stimulate the voracious appetites of our much-smarter-than-we-are audience.
How is public radio marketed? You're not directly dependent on actual listener numbers, so where is your focus? What kind of budget does public radio have for marketing?
Listener numbers are very important, not only to station missions but to achieving revenue goals. Just like arts organizations want to maximize ticket sales, public radio wants to reach the greatest number of people possible. Larger audiences equate to a larger potential membership base, greater appeal to underwriters and a better case statement for foundations. Public radio is marketed to audiences through many traditional and emerging channels--online, print, outdoor advertising, partnerships with arts organizations, presence at community events, etc. As far as budget, I think the answer is the same as any non-profit--never enough.
What is the mission of public radio? The mission of music programming, specifically, on public radio?
Like any non-profit, each station or distributor has their own mission statement. The mission of American Public Media (the larger owner and operator of public radio stations and the second largest producer of public radio programming) is "to enrich the mind and nourish the spirit, thereby enhancing the lives and expanding the perspectives of our audiences, and assisting them in strengthening their communities." We find that this applies across the board to all of the programming produced by American Public Media.
How do you think public radio fits into people's every day lives?
Listeners depend on public radio for a reliable source of news and information, tuning in throughout the day--at work, at home, in the car. Our intelligent music programming is both trusted source of entertainment hosted by people who communicate the best of what is on the air and also a kind of soundtrack to their day. This is by no means a lowest common denominator statement. Rather it's a reflection of how people live and use the media. We get many letters from people for whom the music we play and the news we share are vital and integral parts of their media consumption.
Thoughts on the XM/Sirius merger? Is satellite radio competition for public radio, or do you think the listeners are totally different?
The company position is outlined here.
XM and Sirius both have their own stations that broadcast public radio content. Again, radio listeners are looking for what suits them at a particular moment. It's not a given that public radio listeners don't listen to satellite radio and vice versa. It's still a relatively fresh delivery system that hasn't really had an impact on terrestrial radio stations. Public radio has been investing in the web and HD Radio, which is another consideration. In some markets, stations are moving much of their classical programming from their main signal to one of their HD signals. Until more people own HD radios, this could place a limit on listener access.
At one point, radio was the only way people heard new music. With so many other ways to hear music now, how has public radio evolved its music programming?
A sizable and growing percentage of public radio's audience comes from people streaming online. Podcasts are a growing way for audiences to listen to programs on their own schedule. Music podcasts are limited at this point due to rights issues and new media usage continues to become a larger issue with musician unions' contracts.
Public radio remains a vital source of music as it provides exclusive opportunities for listeners to hear concerts from throughout the world that will never be available on a recording. In fact, Performance Today, SymphonyCast, Pipedreams and St. Paul Sunday (all from American Public Media) feature "new" music rather prominently. Different local stations will also offer contemporary works as their resources and ethos allow.
Have there been strictly radio concert series? E.g. Bass-baritone Eric Owens (shameless plug) gives a radio-only recital?
Yes. For example, American Public Media's Saint Paul Sunday provides exclusive performances and conversation, recorded in studio, that are available only by listening to the program.
Do you ever ask performing artists to host their own radio shows?
Yes, as a matter of fact. There can be some splendid insights that might not otherwise come about. The difficulty often comes in trying to schedule somebody who has a thriving concert career. It also works to have a performing artist work with an established host, to maintain and enhance the trust relationship between them and the listener. It all depends on how compelling the subject and how articulate the artist is.
What are some of your favorite recent initiatives programming-wise?
I think few people really consider how much classical music is around us in our everyday lives. Performance Today has taken a look at some of these connections including literature, film, even cartoons. In fact, next week the second hour of the show looks at improvisation and classical music with guests Robert Levin, Matthias Maute and Cameron Carpenter.
I've always been a little confused by the different tiers of public radio. There's city, state and national? How does the content work? For example, does WNYC decide if and when they want Morning Edition, or does someone dictate that to them?
Public radio has three main producers of national content-- American Public Media, National Public Radio and Public Radio International, plus other distributors like WFMT in Chicago. Unlike a television station that is affiliated with a particular network, local public radio stations can select programs (such as Morning Edition, Performance Today or Marketplace) from any of the various national distributors. Each station balances national programs to a varying degree with their own local programming. (Sometimes programs start out as local and end up becoming nationally distributed.) The stations themselves can exist individually or be a part of a larger regional or statewide network such as Minnesota Public Radio.
Is there a place where I can find all the classical music content on public radio stations across the country? How would someone in Montana go about finding WNYC's Soundcheck, for example?
The internet has changed how people listen to radio. You don't have to be within the reach of a given frequency to hear a particular program on a particular station. There are websites like Public Radio Fan where listeners can find out what shows are heard when and on what station. If someone doesn't know that Soundcheck, Performance Today, SymphonyCast, or Pipedreams exist it's hard to get that news to a listener. But if their keywords are done right, they can lead the listener to something that fits into what they're looking for at that moment.
What is the life of public radio programming off the airwaves? From the Top and This American Life both have their own TV shows, albeit on very different stations, and A Prairie Home Companion is now a touring show. Is this trend good/bad/ugly? Is it even a trend?
I think the opportunity for public radio programs to reach out in various ways--whether on TV (Showtime's This American Life or PBS's Car Talk cartoon), film (A Prairie Home Companion) or cookbooks (The Splendid Table's How to Eat Supper)--can only serve to increase awareness of the various programs among new audiences. Hopefully that will lead these audiences to not only listen on-air or online to the source program, but also discover what else public radio has to offer. There's no bad or ugly about it. There are many ways that a program or a service tries to get in front of the public...some of it works and some of it doesn't. Public radio programming and connecting with listeners is about a multitude of endeavors. It's on the radio, it's on the web, it's in the public eye at events; we try to go where the listeners are, to give them the opportunity to hear and experience things that are generally not available anywhere else. No, I don't think it's a trend.
Given all the time and resources in the world, what would be your dream classical music one-night-only radio program?
It would be a rolling concert hosted by the world's best radio hosts and featuring the world's greatest and most accessible classical music artists. It would follow the world's time zones from one great concert hall and city to the next, over a 24 hour period. Kind of like an Olympics of classical music that every radio would be tuned to, and that would have so much marketing money behind it that it would be the only topic on everyone's lips.
If The Public Theatre's opening night of Hair doesn't make it onto the cover of The New York Times tomorrow, free publicity for everyone reading.
The last minute and a half was truly the most remarkable thing I've ever seen on a stage, through no fault (?) of the production's own.
The last minute and a half was truly the most remarkable thing I've ever seen on a stage, through no fault (?) of the production's own.
First, I must footnote playwright Jason Grote
for that phrase. He mentioned it in an e mail exchange, and I warned
him that I would be claiming it as my own in the future. The future is
now.
Hilary (Hahn) was in The NY Times Crossword last Thursday. 54 down. The clue was "violin virtuoso", the answer: Hahn. Really? People got that? I started to count letters on my fingers...I-T-Z-H-A-K...B-E-L-L...
At this point, I have lost all perspective on who's "famous" and who's "classical music famous". Hilary is clearly classical music-famous, but famous-famous? Apparently. In my experience, folks outside of The Industry know Yo-Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman and maybe, maybe Joshua Bell. After tomorrow night, I suspect they will know Lang Lang as well.
How, and at what point, does that happen in a classical musician's career? Perlman was a top classical act at a time when The Ed Sullivan Show, etc., often had classical performers on television, but this generation of musicians is at a distinct disadvantage there. [I was told once by a booker that a certain TV host, two syllables, rhymes with Pope-rah, "just doesn't like classical music".] Mainstream magazines - fashion, lifestyle - will sometimes feature a classical artist if he/she fits into an existing piece, but one fashion spread does not a household name make. Appearances in movies, performances at special events (like The Kennedy Center Honors)...all of these things contribute, but what tips an artist over the edge? I'd rather not admit this, but I know for a fact that Itzhak Perlman was mentioned on Gossip Girl last season; if you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere.
Should mainstream fame for their artists be every performing arts publicist's goal? If I meet a random person on the street, and he generally knows who Hilary Hahn is, have I done my job? Conversely, should a publicist focus on developing an artist's "classical" fame: high-caliber features and reviews from important industry publications (and now blogs)? I announced loudly and somewhat grandly at a dinner when the Schoenberg/Sibelius came out that I would rather Alex Ross review the disc on his blog than in The New Yorker, because the people reading his blog would actually buy the album, whereas the people reading The New Yorker would just use "this fascinating new interpretation" as cocktail party fodder. [Note to readers: As if I have a choice.] [Note to The New Yorker: You are my favorite! I take it back!] Is it better (" ") for a performing artist to be on the cover of Gramophone or to have a one-page Q&A about how they impress girls buried in Cosmo? Which is higher profile, and which, perhaps more importantly, will raise the artist's profile? Profile...how?
The classical music industry suffers in equal parts from delusions of relevance and delusions of irrelevance. Delusions of relevance inside the industry: what percentage of the population actually cares about classical music? And delusions of irrelevance outside the industry: the large majority of the population may not think it cares about classical music, but classical music is omnipresent, in the elevator, in movies, on your cell phone. Norman Lebrecht was kind enough to point out Hilary's low (and yet, depending on how you look at it, high) album sales. Cue Billy Crudup voiceover: "500 copies a week? $8,000. Overwhelmingly high praise from critics and industry peers? Priceless." Should the classical album market (and classical ticket sales market) attempt to compete with the mainstream/pop markets? Any logical person would say no. But then there's the disconnect: we strive to place performing artists in mainstream media markets, and then still do not expect their album/concert sales to be comparable. Can a real - I'm not talking to you, Josh Groban - classical artist ever be truly mainstream?
(And what defines a "real classical artist"? Yeowza. Another post for another time.)
Hilary (Hahn) was in The NY Times Crossword last Thursday. 54 down. The clue was "violin virtuoso", the answer: Hahn. Really? People got that? I started to count letters on my fingers...I-T-Z-H-A-K...B-E-L-L...
At this point, I have lost all perspective on who's "famous" and who's "classical music famous". Hilary is clearly classical music-famous, but famous-famous? Apparently. In my experience, folks outside of The Industry know Yo-Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman and maybe, maybe Joshua Bell. After tomorrow night, I suspect they will know Lang Lang as well.
How, and at what point, does that happen in a classical musician's career? Perlman was a top classical act at a time when The Ed Sullivan Show, etc., often had classical performers on television, but this generation of musicians is at a distinct disadvantage there. [I was told once by a booker that a certain TV host, two syllables, rhymes with Pope-rah, "just doesn't like classical music".] Mainstream magazines - fashion, lifestyle - will sometimes feature a classical artist if he/she fits into an existing piece, but one fashion spread does not a household name make. Appearances in movies, performances at special events (like The Kennedy Center Honors)...all of these things contribute, but what tips an artist over the edge? I'd rather not admit this, but I know for a fact that Itzhak Perlman was mentioned on Gossip Girl last season; if you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere.
Should mainstream fame for their artists be every performing arts publicist's goal? If I meet a random person on the street, and he generally knows who Hilary Hahn is, have I done my job? Conversely, should a publicist focus on developing an artist's "classical" fame: high-caliber features and reviews from important industry publications (and now blogs)? I announced loudly and somewhat grandly at a dinner when the Schoenberg/Sibelius came out that I would rather Alex Ross review the disc on his blog than in The New Yorker, because the people reading his blog would actually buy the album, whereas the people reading The New Yorker would just use "this fascinating new interpretation" as cocktail party fodder. [Note to readers: As if I have a choice.] [Note to The New Yorker: You are my favorite! I take it back!] Is it better (" ") for a performing artist to be on the cover of Gramophone or to have a one-page Q&A about how they impress girls buried in Cosmo? Which is higher profile, and which, perhaps more importantly, will raise the artist's profile? Profile...how?
The classical music industry suffers in equal parts from delusions of relevance and delusions of irrelevance. Delusions of relevance inside the industry: what percentage of the population actually cares about classical music? And delusions of irrelevance outside the industry: the large majority of the population may not think it cares about classical music, but classical music is omnipresent, in the elevator, in movies, on your cell phone. Norman Lebrecht was kind enough to point out Hilary's low (and yet, depending on how you look at it, high) album sales. Cue Billy Crudup voiceover: "500 copies a week? $8,000. Overwhelmingly high praise from critics and industry peers? Priceless." Should the classical album market (and classical ticket sales market) attempt to compete with the mainstream/pop markets? Any logical person would say no. But then there's the disconnect: we strive to place performing artists in mainstream media markets, and then still do not expect their album/concert sales to be comparable. Can a real - I'm not talking to you, Josh Groban - classical artist ever be truly mainstream?
(And what defines a "real classical artist"? Yeowza. Another post for another time.)
I saw [title of show] on Saturday, and it exceeded all expectations by combining my two great loves: musical theatre and viral marketing.
SPOILER ALERT After finding out that their show is moving to Broad-way, writers/stars Hunter and Jeff are faced with the Sophie's Choice of changing their show to appease Broadway audiences, or sticking to the original, scrappy plan. There's a number, "Nine People's Favorite Thing", just before the finale that contains the lyrics,
I'd rather be nine people's favorite thing
Than a hundred people's ninth favorite thing
...
Those nine people will tell nine people
Then we'll have eighteen people loving the show
Then eighteen people could grow into
Five-hundred and twenty-five-thousand, six-hundred people
All loving our show
A song about viral marketing. I nearly died. And here I am, telling all nine people who read this blog to go see the show.
So there's that, which was fantastic. And there was the YouTube web series, which I've already plugged here. But most importantly, here is a musical about two guys writing a musical. It is the perfect example of that life-being-about-the-journey-not-the-destination expression. A Chorus Line achieves the same thing: you care so deeply about the characters by the end of the hour and a half (current Broadway revival...notwithstanding), that you can't help but apply The Audition to your own life. IBankers, lawyers, publicists: who hasn't thought who am I anyway, am I my resume? Additionally, both [title of show] and A Chorus Line do what I am convinced is the most important marketing technique of all: give the public a behind-the-scenes look at an industry they are unfamiliar with.
Why the success of Dancing with the Stars and American Idol? Because audiences aren't simply watching performances, they are watching performances juxtaposed with every step leading up to the performances. You care if D-list celebrity gives a good performance, because you watched her practice her lipo-sucked tail off. You know which parts are hard for her, you know that she "almost gave up". You know what her favorite parts are. You watch that performance and you can't help but care.
When was the last time you really cared how a string quartet played, beyond wanting to get your money's worth? I honestly don't think I ever have, except maybe when friends are on stage. Get a camera and document the rehearsal of a new piece, from the first meetings with the composer to the day of the performance. Include "confessionals" from group members about their frustrations (the juicier the better, of course), their successes, what they're looking forward to in the performance, what they're dreading. Broadcast those videos in installments on YouTube leading up to the premiere, or talk to the venue about playing clips right before the live performance. Actual footage of the process will be more powerful than any pre-concert discussion. Not only would such a project increase ticket sales, but the quartet (or ensemble, or soloist) will be playing to an informed, engaged, excited audience, and what could be better than that.
SPOILER ALERT After finding out that their show is moving to Broad-way, writers/stars Hunter and Jeff are faced with the Sophie's Choice of changing their show to appease Broadway audiences, or sticking to the original, scrappy plan. There's a number, "Nine People's Favorite Thing", just before the finale that contains the lyrics,
I'd rather be nine people's favorite thing
Than a hundred people's ninth favorite thing
...
Those nine people will tell nine people
Then we'll have eighteen people loving the show
Then eighteen people could grow into
Five-hundred and twenty-five-thousand, six-hundred people
All loving our show
A song about viral marketing. I nearly died. And here I am, telling all nine people who read this blog to go see the show.
So there's that, which was fantastic. And there was the YouTube web series, which I've already plugged here. But most importantly, here is a musical about two guys writing a musical. It is the perfect example of that life-being-about-the-journey-not-the-destination expression. A Chorus Line achieves the same thing: you care so deeply about the characters by the end of the hour and a half (current Broadway revival...notwithstanding), that you can't help but apply The Audition to your own life. IBankers, lawyers, publicists: who hasn't thought who am I anyway, am I my resume? Additionally, both [title of show] and A Chorus Line do what I am convinced is the most important marketing technique of all: give the public a behind-the-scenes look at an industry they are unfamiliar with.
Why the success of Dancing with the Stars and American Idol? Because audiences aren't simply watching performances, they are watching performances juxtaposed with every step leading up to the performances. You care if D-list celebrity gives a good performance, because you watched her practice her lipo-sucked tail off. You know which parts are hard for her, you know that she "almost gave up". You know what her favorite parts are. You watch that performance and you can't help but care.
When was the last time you really cared how a string quartet played, beyond wanting to get your money's worth? I honestly don't think I ever have, except maybe when friends are on stage. Get a camera and document the rehearsal of a new piece, from the first meetings with the composer to the day of the performance. Include "confessionals" from group members about their frustrations (the juicier the better, of course), their successes, what they're looking forward to in the performance, what they're dreading. Broadcast those videos in installments on YouTube leading up to the premiere, or talk to the venue about playing clips right before the live performance. Actual footage of the process will be more powerful than any pre-concert discussion. Not only would such a project increase ticket sales, but the quartet (or ensemble, or soloist) will be playing to an informed, engaged, excited audience, and what could be better than that.
I have to go to work tomorrow for the first time in over a year. If you think I'm not picking out my outfit tonight and making sure I have push-pencils
and a calculator, you are mistaken.
So I'm going to work to begin my limited engagement as director of publicity for a record label (cue obligatory "boo's" and "hisses") while the current director is on maternity leave, which means I have to sneak in a post about classical music album art today.
What I Hate About You, Classical Album Covers
by Amanda Ameer
1. Instruments. If an album says "Hilary Hahn, Violin" and lists the violin repertoire she's playing, must she have her violin in the photo to, what, prove that she's a violinist because she...has one?
2. Mood. Why so serious? ALL THE TIME. Some repertoire is serious, yes, but some is fun! The photos should match the mood and general aesthetic of the pieces on the disc, obviously. I hate to bring Mischa Barton into this, but imagine how (much more?) terrible these ads would be if her body language, make-up, hair, expression and general look were the same for a Keds ad and an Iceberg ad:
3. Photos.
Must there be a photo at all? How many high-selling albums actually
have photos of the artists on the covers? Not that high sales are the
most important thing, necessarily (although check back in with me after
tomorrow), but how many "popular" albums have photos? I took a gander
at the top five albums on the general Billboard chart and the top five
albums on the classical chart this morning:
Actually, there were more artist photos on the "mainstream" album covers than I thought (do we think that cute, cute baby is "Lil' Wayne"?), but my point is that not having a photo on a classical album is barely even an option these days, whereas you see albums with different art and photography on albums in other genres all the time.
4. Fonts. Script = classical, right? Sometimes I find it hard to believe that the designers even thought about the repertoire and the artist when choosing fonts for the artists' name, the album title and the accompanying information. If it were up to me, the artist's name would be in the same font on all of their albums (and on their website and in their press materials) and only the album title and track listing would change fonts.
5. Refusal to have fun. Some rep is kind of funny, and actually, some artists are kind of funny, too. Think outside the box set! Here are two I like a whole lot:
6. Titles. Why can't a Bohème album be called "Boho chic" or something? How about "Quando"? Surely we could have come up with something catchy for an album of Schoenberg and Sibelius concertos...feel free to submit some.
7. Lack of collaboration with visual artists. Something I never thought I'd say to record labels: crossover! Why don't contemporary visual artists lend their talents and perspectives to classical album art? It could only benefit sales (the original artwork could be on display somewhere with a credit and featured in fine art publications), and would provide a really interesting insights into artists and repertoire. Here is a Steve Reich album with artwork by Roy Lichtenstein:
All I want for Christmas is Art Spiegelman doing a Schoenberg cover.
8. Lack of information. If someone picks up a classical album in the store of an artist or piece they don't already know, what sells them on it? I was thrilled that the back of Hilary's last album had a sentence about the concertos (still no sentence on her, but...), simply because it gives the potential buyers some context with which to listen to the album. A statement from the artist about why they are recording these pieces at this time would be especially powerful, I think.
Not to fear - I'll fix this all between tomorrow and December 1.
So I'm going to work to begin my limited engagement as director of publicity for a record label (cue obligatory "boo's" and "hisses") while the current director is on maternity leave, which means I have to sneak in a post about classical music album art today.
What I Hate About You, Classical Album Covers
by Amanda Ameer
1. Instruments. If an album says "Hilary Hahn, Violin" and lists the violin repertoire she's playing, must she have her violin in the photo to, what, prove that she's a violinist because she...has one?
2. Mood. Why so serious? ALL THE TIME. Some repertoire is serious, yes, but some is fun! The photos should match the mood and general aesthetic of the pieces on the disc, obviously. I hate to bring Mischa Barton into this, but imagine how (much more?) terrible these ads would be if her body language, make-up, hair, expression and general look were the same for a Keds ad and an Iceberg ad:
3. Photos.
Must there be a photo at all? How many high-selling albums actually
have photos of the artists on the covers? Not that high sales are the
most important thing, necessarily (although check back in with me after
tomorrow), but how many "popular" albums have photos? I took a gander
at the top five albums on the general Billboard chart and the top five
albums on the classical chart this morning:Actually, there were more artist photos on the "mainstream" album covers than I thought (do we think that cute, cute baby is "Lil' Wayne"?), but my point is that not having a photo on a classical album is barely even an option these days, whereas you see albums with different art and photography on albums in other genres all the time.
4. Fonts. Script = classical, right? Sometimes I find it hard to believe that the designers even thought about the repertoire and the artist when choosing fonts for the artists' name, the album title and the accompanying information. If it were up to me, the artist's name would be in the same font on all of their albums (and on their website and in their press materials) and only the album title and track listing would change fonts.
5. Refusal to have fun. Some rep is kind of funny, and actually, some artists are kind of funny, too. Think outside the box set! Here are two I like a whole lot:
6. Titles. Why can't a Bohème album be called "Boho chic" or something? How about "Quando"? Surely we could have come up with something catchy for an album of Schoenberg and Sibelius concertos...feel free to submit some.
7. Lack of collaboration with visual artists. Something I never thought I'd say to record labels: crossover! Why don't contemporary visual artists lend their talents and perspectives to classical album art? It could only benefit sales (the original artwork could be on display somewhere with a credit and featured in fine art publications), and would provide a really interesting insights into artists and repertoire. Here is a Steve Reich album with artwork by Roy Lichtenstein:
All I want for Christmas is Art Spiegelman doing a Schoenberg cover.
8. Lack of information. If someone picks up a classical album in the store of an artist or piece they don't already know, what sells them on it? I was thrilled that the back of Hilary's last album had a sentence about the concertos (still no sentence on her, but...), simply because it gives the potential buyers some context with which to listen to the album. A statement from the artist about why they are recording these pieces at this time would be especially powerful, I think.
Not to fear - I'll fix this all between tomorrow and December 1.
AJ Ads
Introducing
AJ Arts Blog Ads
Now you can reach the most discerning arts blog readers on the internet. Target individual blogs or topics in the ArtsJournal ad network.
Advertise Here
AJ Arts Blog Ads
Now you can reach the most discerning arts blog readers on the internet. Target individual blogs or topics in the ArtsJournal ad network.
Advertise Here
AJ Blogs
AJBlogCentral | rssculture
About Last Night
Terry Teachout on the arts in New York City
Terry Teachout on the arts in New York City
Artful Manager
Andrew Taylor on the business of arts & culture
Andrew Taylor on the business of arts & culture
blog riley
rock culture approximately
rock culture approximately
CultureGulf
Rebuilding Gulf Culture after Katrina
Rebuilding Gulf Culture after Katrina
Dewey21C
Richard Kessler on arts education
Richard Kessler on arts education
diacritical
Douglas McLennan's blog
Douglas McLennan's blog
Flyover
Art from the American Outback
Art from the American Outback
Life's a Pitch
For immediate release: the arts are marketable
For immediate release: the arts are marketable
Mind the Gap
No genre is the new genre
No genre is the new genre
Performance Monkey
David Jays on theatre and dance
David Jays on theatre and dance
Plain English
Paul Levy measures the Angles
Paul Levy measures the Angles
Real Clear Arts
Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture
Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture
Rockwell Matters
John Rockwell on the arts
John Rockwell on the arts
Straight Up |
Jan Herman - arts, media & culture with 'tude
Jan Herman - arts, media & culture with 'tude
dance
Foot in Mouth
Apollinaire Scherr talks about dance
Apollinaire Scherr talks about dance
Seeing Things
Tobi Tobias on dance et al...
Tobi Tobias on dance et al...
jazz
Jazz Beyond Jazz
Howard Mandel's freelance Urban Improvisation
Howard Mandel's freelance Urban Improvisation
ListenGood
Focus on New Orleans. Jazz and Other Sounds
Focus on New Orleans. Jazz and Other Sounds
Rifftides
Doug Ramsey on Jazz and other matters...
Doug Ramsey on Jazz and other matters...
media
Out There
Jeff Weinstein's Cultural Mixology
Jeff Weinstein's Cultural Mixology
Serious Popcorn
Martha Bayles on Film...
Martha Bayles on Film...
classical music
The Future of Classical Music?
Greg Sandow performs a book-in-progress
Greg Sandow performs a book-in-progress
On the Record
Exploring Orchestras w/ Henry Fogel
Exploring Orchestras w/ Henry Fogel
Overflow
Harvey Sachs on music, and various digressions
Harvey Sachs on music, and various digressions
PianoMorphosis
Bruce Brubaker on all things Piano
Bruce Brubaker on all things Piano
PostClassic
Kyle Gann on music after the fact
Kyle Gann on music after the fact
Sandow
Greg Sandow on the future of Classical Music
Greg Sandow on the future of Classical Music
Slipped Disc
Norman Lebrecht on Shifting Sound Worlds
Norman Lebrecht on Shifting Sound Worlds
publishing
book/daddy
Jerome Weeks on Books
Jerome Weeks on Books
Quick Study
Scott McLemee on books, ideas & trash-culture ephemera
Scott McLemee on books, ideas & trash-culture ephemera
theatre
Drama Queen
Wendy Rosenfield: covering drama, onstage and off
Wendy Rosenfield: covering drama, onstage and off
lies like truth
Chloe Veltman on how culture will save the world
Chloe Veltman on how culture will save the world
visual
Aesthetic Grounds
Public Art, Public Space
Public Art, Public Space
Artopia
John Perreault's art diary
John Perreault's art diary
CultureGrrl
Lee Rosenbaum's Cultural Commentary
Lee Rosenbaum's Cultural Commentary
Modern Art Notes
Tyler Green's modern & contemporary art blog
Tyler Green's modern & contemporary art blog
