Featured

One of the entertaining activities the artistic director at a job I once held and I used to engage in was reading the solicitation faxes that came in. Some times the entertainment came from imagining the reactions our audience members would have if they ever saw some of these groups on stage. Other times the entertainment came when we saw that someone was trying to pass a group off as an iconic band.

As they say about spam emailing and telemarketing, these agents wouldn’t advertise if it didn’t work. After hearing a story on NPR today, I figured a caveat emptor entry might be a good idea. If you don’t follow the music world closely, you can end up thinking you are buying a performance by legends at bargain prices only to learn that you are getting what you paid for (if not less).

The NPR story was about “truth in music” laws popping up in some states saying people can’t use the name of iconic music groups unless there is an original member in the group. The story mentions The Platters prominently because in addition to some of the original members using the name, the impressario who developed them owns the rights to the name and sold it all over the place to people without any relation to the group at all.

Some groups it is fairly easy to know you aren’t getting the original group. The Glenn Miller Orchestra is one example. It doesn’t take much effort to realize the originals ain’t performing. There is a group performing under the same name in the UK and Germany, but again, it is tough to confuse which group you are about to see.

Other groups it is a little more difficult. For instance, WAR still tours. There were 8 original band members and about 35 other members throughout the years. Currently, keyboardist Lonnie Jordan is the only original member of the band still touring under the WAR name. Under the existing state laws, he is welcome to do so.

The question is, what constitutes an original member? Pete Best was the original drummer for The Beatles for two years, but outside of a Trivial Pursuit game, few would name him as such. Had the band been any less famous, he might have a case for touring with a band called The Beatles under the state laws. (Of course, this also assumes they retained ownership of their songs.)

The biggest impediment to anyone touring under a band name is someone with claim to the name complaining that they are misrepresenting themselves. Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger, both very identifiable as members of The Doors have been forbidden to tour under The Doors name or even as The Doors of the 21st Century as a result of a suit by the third remaining member, John Densmore.

Ultimately, if you are thinking about presenting a famous act. It might behoove you to check the names of the people who performed on the best albums against the current list to determine just how famous the band remains.

I have been reading along in Joli Jensen’s Are The Arts Good For Us? I haven’t gotten too far because some tough weeks have made me long for escapist literature rather than material that I need to take notes on.

She is discussing Alexis de Tocqueville’s view of the arts from his famous Democracy in America. She notes that he felt America’s ties to European arts would keep the young democracy from devolving into barbarism until it developed art of its own.

I got to thinking, what uniquely American things as the country contributed? Blues? Jazz? Television? Movies? Rap? One might cringe at the idea of some of these things representing our contributions. Remember though that none of these things are bad in and of themselves. It is just the expressions via these media that have been lacking at times. Just as sometimes, the expressions have been breathtaking.

The idea that it is the expression, not the art form that is good or bad come upon me while listening to NPR on the ride home today. They were profiling Daniel Bernard Roumain, a classically trained violinist (for as much as that term might mean) who refers to his style as “dred violin.” He is a Haitian-American with dreadlocks and a silver nose ring who likes to experiment with all the sounds he can get out of his violin. His compositions are infused with rock, jazz, hip-hop and classical inspirations.

I don’t know much about classical music, but as I listen I get the feeling that there might be some real worth in what he is doing. Some of his work really sounds interesting. He could be contributing something to the whole music scene, regardless of genre.

But what is it about his pop-inspired music that is so compelling that isn’t in the music of Bond with whom I am not really impressed? To me it seems as if he is concentrating on exploring how different musical elements fit together well rather than if it sounds marketable. There is also some real there there.

Which isn’t to say he isn’t concerned about being marketable. The fact that his look is a marketable commodity is discussed in the interview. But so is the fact that his look will only be cool for so long and will only take him so far.

For all the bombast in the image they are trying to create for him and his group, there is a real humility. He wishes his mastery of classical music was better. He is relieved that a sightreading of a piece he composed for the Lark Quartet integrated as well as it did.

While he has plenty to keep him busy with his group and ten commissions lined up, it remains to be seen if his talent and approach are of a quality (and timing) that will have lasting appeal.

Perhaps a positive result of the arts having to justify their value in terms of education, economic benefits, etc., apparently some colleges and universities are contracting artists using availability to do residencies as a primary criteria.

In the article “Campus Precedents” found in APAP’s September/October Inside Arts (alas, the article is not available online) Jenna Russell cites a number of schools like Ohio University and Dartmouth where residencies are scheduled before performances. She quotes Clarice Smith PAC’s (at U. of MD) Marketing Director, Charles Helm, “We won’t have [artists] here if they can’t stay longer to work with students. It is absolutely imperative.”

The residencies aren’t just in topics directly associated with performing arts either. According to the article, a residency at Dartmouth had performers rappelling down the walls of the science center lobby while a physics professor talked about the elements of momentum and gravity in the performance.

But even classes in arts subject areas are getting a more enhanced experience than they have in the past. The residencies allow students to become involved in master classes and open rehearsals essentially gaining insights and skills they won’t get in their normal classes.

Unfortunately, while the residencies have been educationally valuable to students, it hasn’t increased student attendance at performances significantly. There has been some growth, but students still comprise a minority of the audiences at these residential campuses where students can walk to the arts center and student tickets are under $10.

This is all very interesting to me since some faculty on campus have started thinking about how the events in the season can tie into their classes. I have also been thinking that perhaps my ticket prices could be a little lower for students, but that doesn’t seem to be any great incentive according to this article. I have also been following Andrew Taylor and Drew McManus’ recent entries on ticket pricing as an element in deciding to purchase.

As promised, I have delved into the Community Arts Network webpage I cited yesterday. Though in all honesty, there wasn’t much delving going on. I hardly clicked upon a link before I came across an article that piqued my interest.

Caron Atlas’ “Cultural Policy: In the board rooms and on the streets” offers some thought provoking stuff. She starts out talking about how pretty much every choice we make in our lives is a cultural policy issue. No big surprise there really. It isn’t something we can escape.

The next paragraph really got me thinking though.

Cultural policy is both a product and a process, a framework for making rules and decisions that is informed by social relationships and values. It is not easily defined in the United States. In fact, for much of our history, our government has had an official policy of not having a cultural policy,…But not calling something a policy does not mean there isn’t any…In the United States, policy and policymaking are more often implicit than explicit, and thus they are frequently invisible. This prevents us, as a country, from being able to have a conversation about the value of art and culture within our society. And de facto or invisible policies can become undemocratic and unaccountable.

This may seem self-evident to many people and I have to admit, subconsciously, I think I derived that notion from everything I have read. But I had an a-ha moment reading that bit about lack of explicit cultural policy acting as an impediment to conversation.

It isn’t just that arts are disappearing from the schools and that the breakdown of the family unit and the competition of computers and DVDs are contributing to the decline in participation in the arts. We, as a people, don’t have the ability to discuss the value of what may be lost. It is all monologue rather than dialogue with the cultural folks talking at rather than with the public.

The situation has as much value as an African bushman trying to explain to me the importance a dangerous practice like hunting a lion with a wooden spear has as a rite of passage. I may admire the courage of the young man engaging in the practice, but I will never grasp how the processes results in the creation of a valuable member of the community.

There are so many nuances that the man understands instinctively having been a part of that culture that it would never occur to him to communicate because he takes them for granted as basic truths. I, on the other hand, would probably have no appreciation for the nuances as they would be foreign to my culture.

Another interesting point that Caron points out is how culture and public policy have been connected, especially as a weapon in the Cold War. (An area Drew McManus just recently explored on his own blog.)

The public works programs of the WPA (Work Projects Administration) in the 1930s and of CETA (Comprehensive Education and Training Administration) in the 1970s supported workforce and community by providing opportunities for artists to help rebuild the nation with their art…In the ’60s, an understanding of art and culture as a scarce resource that needed proactive government support led to the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts…And now, in the post 9/11 21st century, diplomats argue for a U.S. reentry into UNESCO as “a real opportunity to advance the ideological interests of the international coalition against terrorism.

Alas, an initiative to employ our artists in a similar manner in the current international conflict hasn’t emerged (Atlas’ article was written in 2002).

Atlas engages in a good discussion of the myriad decisions in other areas can be de facto cultural policy decisions. She then makes a number of suggestions about how people can become involved or at least aware of how cultural policy is being shaped. One of the suggestions that caught my eye-

Be a sustained part of policy discussions about the other issues besides the arts that are of concern to our communities. Acknowledge and reject priorities set by cultural policy efforts that are not in the interests of a community. For example, arts districts can bring gentrification and cultural development can impose another definition of culture than that which is embraced by community members…

I have often read about how artists move into a neighborhood, the neighborhood becomes the place to be, rents skyrocket and then the artists can no longer afford to live in the place that their very presence made cool. What I never really recognized was that this process could also end up displacing close knit ethnic groups and eroding their identities.

Even if the process doesn’t break up ethnic groups or neighborhoods that have established identities for themselves as a group, folks who might never have had the time, opportunity or inclination to consider cultural activities might just start appreciating the work of those strange artists down the street when the landlord tells them their apartment is about to become a luxury condo at triple the rent.

The situation can also give the impression that culture is only for the rich or perhaps that if the cultural activities were any good, the wealthy would be moving in to co-opt it as their own.

Postscript– No sooner did I post this entry than I remembered, I actually had read about artist wrought gentrification threatening the Hasidic community of Williamburg in Brooklyn (a blogger features this poster about their fears). Thanks to Google, I was able to find a story by a Columbia University journalism student on the topic.

I also found this reprint of a New York Times article about some women who are trying to keep the ethnic members of the community from becoming displaced altogether.