Drew McManus, the brains behind the Take A Friend To the Orchestra project, has compiled the contributions, (including yours truly’s) for the 2006 version into a book.

To purchase it, click on the button below:

I will be adding the button to the sidebar of my blog soon.

On a related note, as long time readers may know I have been occasionally checking in on the Honolulu Symphony since attending a concert as part of my participation in Take A Friend to the Orchestra Month. I am happy to say they have noted the new executive director hire as well as the new board membership on their web page. I have been somewhat critical of them on this blog before so it is only fair that I recognize positive steps as well.

I often read about how restrictive copyright law is stifling creativity, but recently I have begun wondering if people are stifling themselves. We have all heard or read the arguments against Top 40 music artists who sample the work of predecessors and about how Broadway and Hollywood are reviving, remaking or adapting works.

In a way you can understand how these people are slaves to whatever will have wide appeal so they can make money. Lately though, I have been seeing a similar trend in shows that don’t have that concern because the primary audience is family and friends and will show up and pay any price no matter what the quality. There is almost free license to trump predecessors with ones originality. Instead, they are borrowing heavily from them.

The trend is starting to worry me because it is beginning to look something akin to everyone expressing their individuality by getting a tattoo. (In many cases, employing the same motif they were impressed by inked on someone else.)

In the past year, we have had three beauty pagaents by three different organizations. Two of them serve as qualifiers for the same national pagaent so you would think there might be some competition between them to be viewed as the more prestigious or attracting women who go on to earn the most titles.

Instead the organizer of the second one (who has been in the business 14 years) asked the organizer of the first one for help which included all the choreography. The third organizer (also a long time in the field) asked us to keep the entire set and props from the second pagaent. Except for different draping fabrics, it will look pretty much the same as pagaent number two.

It is the same situation with a hip-hop dance group coming in soon. We had a taiko drum group use our orchestra lift to make a grand entrance emerging from the pit during a closed recital six weeks ago. This dance group is doing the exact same thing. The fact they are using the same taiko group is something of a mixed blessing in my eyes. They might be copying someone else’s idea, but at least the originator is getting credit for the performance.

In the month after this dance group performs, two of their rivals will be renting my theatre. In the past they have often asked or expected the same things their rivals had. (Including moving light effects which the rival groups rent since we have none in stock.) This is rather ironic since one of the groups splintered off from one of the others. There are some hard feelings, but not so much that they can’t be derivative.

I have been considering booking some touring hip-hop dance groups in because I know there is definite interest in the genre and I would get a good turn out. In one part of my mind, I am pretty sure I will also be influencing the next wave of choreographic choices being made by bringing fresh ideas in despite the available material on cable, internet, etc.

I just wonder what the base cause of this trend might be. Are people so afraid of failure, even in the face of a guaranteed sell out audience that they feel it necessary to mine another’s ideas? If anyone has some insight I would certainly love an explanation.

I am just finishing up Walter Isaacson’s biography of Benjamin Franklin. As we all know, he should pretty much be a patron saint to non-profit organizations for his lessons in frugality and thrift in Poor Richard’s Almanack.

One thing you may not be aware of is that after founding what was to become the University of Pennsylvania in 1751, he decided it was important to build a hospital. Since he was having trouble raising money, according to Isaacson he “got the [PA] Assembly to agree that if ‘2,000 could be raised privately, it would be matched by ‘2,000 from the public purse.”

According to Isaacson, he was the person who introduced the concept of matching grants to what was to become the United States. (Which by the way is one of the situations the studies I mentioned two days ago noted males are likely to be more generous.)

Why you ask, with a gentleman with such standing and influence in the policy as to have a hand in the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the peace accord with Britain, supporting the idea of matching grants did it take nearly 200 years for organizations like the Ford Foundation to employ it as a funding scheme?

Well for one, political opponents felt the move was too conniving. I suppose it was because they didn’t believe he could raise the money and had tricked the Assembly. Franklin noted that knowing that their money would essentially doubled, they gave more.

Franklin himself referred to his innovative idea as a political maneuver so he might have felt a little uneasy about it himself. The success of his plan eased any troubled thoughts he might have had. “…after thinking about it I more easily excused myself for having made use of cunning.”

Like so many of the institutions, inventions and concepts Franklin had a hand in creating or developing, we regard the matching grant arrangement as a common tool for accomplishing our work. It is hard to conceive of it as being controversial.