I am not a big fan of American Idol for a number of reasons. Mostly because while it positions itself as picking the next big national star, it is essentially picking a palatable compromise performing in a narrow niche market.

However, as I have been a big proponent of performers blogging about the process they go through to prepare for a show, I feel compelled to present an article that recently appeared on the NY Foundation for the Arts site featuring one woman’s blog about her attempt to become a contestant on American Idol.

She doesn’t get accepted to be a contestant, however her blog is interesting because it shows the extent she went to to prepare–everything from high heels training, mishaps in a tanning booth to getting former MTV News anchor Tabitha Soren to practice interview her. She even had blog readers vote on what earrings, shoes and tshirt to wear to the auditions.

While I don’t know I would ever encourage anyone to audition for the show other than for the practice, I do like appreciate that she took the time to write about the process so others could reference it and learn from it. (Even if it means they would draw encouragement from it to audition for the stupid show.)

Go check out Marisa’s American Idol Audition Training Blog

I have been reading Greg Sandow’s book in progress, The Future of Classical Music? over on Artsjournal.com. I haven’t linked to him much, but I am always interested in what he has to say in his blog about arts communications–often how press releases and program notes are written well and poorly. Many times I go and scrutinize what I have written after reading his entries.

One thing in his book that really floored me was his report of the lack of passion in orchestra administration.

The people who work for major orchestras typically don’t go to concerts. Almost never in the office of the orchestra will people come to work and talk about the music. Isn’t there something wrong with this? I’ve talked to a consultant who’s worked both with orchestras and with theater companies, and he’s stunned by what he finds in orchestras. In a theater company, people come to the office the day after a new production opens, and the production is all that they can talk about (the play, the acting, the directing, the sets and costumes, everything). But at orchestras, after a concert, no one says a word. If this is great art, where’s the depth, the transcendence, or even the certainty, both audible and visible, that everybody’s giving everything they’ve got?

I guess I always assumed that people involved in an art organization had some passion for it. As a person who comes out of theatre, I pretty much pictured what Greg describes as the day after in a theatre as happening in ballets, orchestras, museums and galleries. I figured I wouldn’t understand the conversations as people employed the jargon of their particular niche or used obscure terminology to inflate their sense of self-importance.

I never imagined that the conversations wouldn’t take place. A career in the arts is a labor of love after all. Analyzing how well or poorly something when the next morning with equally impassioned people is one of the few rewards one gets for choosing this path in life.

If what Greg says is true, it puts a lot of things in a different context for me. When Drew McManus over at Adaptistration criticized orchestra administrators as heartless individuals who were out to enrich themselves at the expense of the musicians, (I am generalizing his sentiments a bit here, though not too far off), I figured they were perhaps people without the talent or discipline to be musicians but possessed still of a passion for the art.

Now I am starting to wonder if they aren’t just heartless individuals out to enrich themselves on the labor of the musicians. Okay, may be it is a little hyperbolic to ascribe nefarious intent to orchestra administrators. There are certainly better ways to go about exploiting the labor of others.

I have to wonder if the whole orchestra system needs to be revamped. If people can’t be moved to discuss the basic merits or disappointments of a performance, they don’t deserve to benefit from the performance revenue. (Which isn’t to imply that people who do talk about it should be permitted to exploit others either, of course!)

Another related bit of information comes from the entry just prior to the third chapter of Sandow’s book in which he talks about quality control in orchestras.

“Who in an orchestra has the power to tell the musicians that they’re not playing well enough? Not the executive director. My partner in this discussion had gotten shot down by his musicians simply for bringing the question up. Not the chairman or president of the board. Can anyone imagine a board leader going out on stage after a rehearsal, or gathering the musicians in the green room after a concert, and saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, that simply wasn’t good enough”? It doesn’t happen.

So the job falls to the music director. But music directors absolutely don’t do this, to my knowledge, about concerts that they don’t conduct. Some people in the discussion even brought up names of music directors whom they thought were happy when their orchestras played badly for someone else.”

This revelation didn’t strain my incredulity as much because I understand that different industries have varying operating situations and standards.

I come from the theatre world where the stage manager is empowered to tell the actors the quality is falling and where actors can be fined under union rules for repeatedly straying too far from the vision of the play. In late 1996, Cameron McIntosh, the producer of Les Miserables, fired most of the Broadway cast because he felt the show had become stale.

I am not going to even consider claiming live theatre is at the zenith of quality and artistic excellence. They got problems for which I can’t even begin to start to suggest solutions.

I will say that if there is any truth at all beyond these stories about lack of passion in the administration and apathy (and perhaps plain intentional antagonism) among musicians and musical directors in regard to quality, it is a clear starting point for turning the fortunes of orchestras around.

How can audiences have an appreciation for the experience if the orchestra itself doesn’t value what they produce? As with live theatre, quality control and passion won’t solve all problems and result in fiscal solvency.

But at least when you say “We have a great product, why won’t anyone show up,” you are speaking with certainty and with a unified voice top to bottom.

I have often wondered why the heck ballet companies always decide to do Nutcracker every year instead of mixing their offerings up a bit. I know it is a money making show that pays for other productions, but there are three companies performing it in my city alone!

Sure there are theatre companies that do A Christmas Carol every year, but it is nowhere close to the frequency with which Nutcracker is performed.

From some observations I have made of regular season ballet performances, I don’t think the show is helping to convince people to come for the Nutcracker and return for the Coppelia.

Just to be fair though, I thought I would check to see if anyone was doing any alternative shows.

I Goggled Christmas Carol Ballet and found one performqance in upstate NY, Traverse City, MI and Chattanooga, TN. There is a production in Australia. Royal New Zealand Ballet has done it, but aren’t this year. Northern Ballet Theatre in the UK last performed it in 2003.

London’s Royal Festival Hall did it in 2000. Athens (GA) Ballet Theatre did it in 1999, as did Honolulu Ballet Theatre.

It goes further back in time from there.

I Googled It’s A Wonderful Life Ballet and came back with nothing except a teasing mention of the ballet in a Ballet Oklahoma dancer’s bio (scroll down to Emily Fine)

Googling Messiah Ballet turned up a load of links–all of the in Canada, with the exception of past productions by Carolina Ballet. Granted, few of the productions are/have been performed at Christmas, (Easter is the alternative time of the year it is performed), but it was the only other subject area I could think that might be turned into a ballet.

I don’t know if the fact that many companies who have done non-Nutcracker performances haven’t done them in a long time is an indication that people are so used to the concept of Nutcracker, they can’t imagine going to see any other subject.

Some might say the ballets have their audiences well-trained to accept what they are offering. Yet the fact they can’t wean people away from Nutcracker and on to a variety of shows may mean they have the people trained to a fault.

Many of the original articles are no longer available from the respective newspapers, but this post-Christmas 2005 summary from Artsjournal tells an interesting tale.

Boston-Cutting salaries because they were booted from the Wang Center by the Radio City Christmas Spectacular and had to make due in a smaller space.

Colorado- Fights Radio City Christmas show to a draw

Pittsburgh-disappointing holiday sales (and this is before they stopped using live music)

Philadelphia-Penn Ballet’s numbers hold steady.

Utah-Opening season with Nutcracker because it is money maker.

I came across an article in Backstage, by way of Artsjournal.com that put me in mind of the chorus of They Might Be Giants’ “Whistling In the Dark.”

There’s only one thing that I know how to do well
And I’ve often been told that you only can do
What you know how to do well
And that’s be you,
Be what you’re like,
Be like yourself,
And so I’m having a wonderful time
But I’d rather be whistling in the dark

The article in question, “Hung up on Tent Poles, Studios Think Too Big” looks at many great movies that haven’t done well financially in recent years because big movie studios are paying big movie studio prices to make independent studio quality films.

Audiences are looking for high quality films and the studio are responding by making films that are clearly worthy of being made. They just aren’t going to be as wildly popular as a Harry Potter movie and bring as big a return on investment. The article points out that it is difficult for studios to be economical because directors and actors know that the studios have the money to pay them and can stubbornly hold out. If the studio wants the picture made badly enough with the draw of a star, they relent.

As is often the case with my entries, I see a lesson in this for arts organizations!

Because our audiences often use NYC based arts organizations (Broadway, The Met, NY Ballet) as the yardstick by which they measure the quality of our offerings (though I often have my events compared to Las Vegas shows!) there is often pressure on us to grow bigger, better, and more professional in quality.

If we were once avant garde, we may be accused of selling out. But who cares, we are putting more butts in the seats and that is paying for all the improvements we need to do. Its pays the salaries of the development office and for lobbying the government to build a performing arts center.

I am guessing you can see where I am going with this so I will stop here. It is hard to resist the lure of becoming bigger and better, even if improved standing in the community is not the goal. If we are reaching out to underserved kids, we feel pressured to expand our programs so we can get more money to support our important outreach activities.

Reading the Backstage article gave me hope. The fact the big guys have a hard time producing worthy stuff economically means that there is a probably a niche in the arts world that the small, hungry orgs can serve successfully without having to grow too big.

Now if only we can get more people out to see the performances 😉