American Classical Music at 250 — Take Seven: Another Boston Symphony Perspective on the “Malaise” Afflicting Orchestras

The most frequent public respondent to my recent blogs about the long brewing crises now afflicting America’s major orchestras, James Orleans writes as a member of the Boston Symphony’s double bass section from 1983 to 2018. As I did on July 29, I am reproducing his comments in the main body of my blog lest they otherwise be overlooked. If our orchestras matter, so do the concerns he voices from within in ranks. He writes:

Regarding the “overworked,” “malaise-ridden,” no longer “music-loving” players in today’s American orchestras: it has always appeared to me that the paradigm of the inspiring conductor and consequently inspired (or not) players has created a system that allows that malaise to come across on the stage.

The notion of professional stage demeanor is absent. It has not been encouraged by teachers and mentors either.

The conductor Kenneth Woods, in the Woods/Horowitz podcast addressing the “orchestra gap” increasingly separating the major American and European orchestras,  mentions the care with which the stage actor prepares a role. I would take that comparison further and add that the stage actor puts his reputation on the line every one of his eight performances a week. He understands that he must dig deeply into what he knows about the character he plays, and how to convincingly convey that to the audience on those nights he is just not into it. Perhaps he’s never liked the director’s blocking, or hates a particular phrase in his script, or has had a bad day. If he were to let his “tired of this play” malaise show in his performance, he would never be offered great roles again.

But American orchestral musicians do not feel this sense of professional responsibility. You will hear them scoff at the idea that they need to “look” more involved. They feel that their routine level of play is high enough to convey the music to their audience. (They are not entirely wrong about that.) If the conductor doesn’t inspire them to greater engagement, it is the fault of the baton.

And yet the conductor William Henry Curry, in a recent response to one of Joe Horowitz’s blogs, says not to blame the baton-wielder.

The simple visual aid to the audience that shows “you mean it” could go a long way in dispelling the “go ahead; make me play” attitude that has infected orchestras in this country. And mostly among the highest paid groups, too, one might observe. We do know that audiences listen with their eyes as much as with their ears.

Conductors want engaged orchestras. I know this for a fact. They don’t want orchestras that offer nothing more than default responses if not asked specifically for every little thing.

Seiji Ozawa once said, in an interview in Japan, that American orchestras are like a department store. Everything is there, but you have to ask or look for it yourself. And that the best European orchestras more often sense that they can take responsibility for the music themselves. The employer/employee orchestral mindset is an American phenomenon.

Regarding Joe’s blog addressing the Ford Foundation grants and our over-supply of orchestras and concerts: at the peak of its support (1992), the NEA was granting $330K per year (close to $800K in today’s dollars) to the topmost orchestras. Since then the grants have been whittled down to virtually nothing per year. The largest orchestra grant last year was apparently $40K.

In fact, all indicators of orchestral support have consistently been pointing in a downward direction for decades. The long overdue culling of orchestras is going to start happening. And it will likely be precipitous.

To revisit Chris Eagle Hawk’s performance criterion in Joe’s New York Times piece: malaise-ridden musicians in the orchestras most able to survive had better start “feeling it” soon.

And here is a comment James Orleans posted on Norman Lebrecht’s slippedisc:

Just as one must look inward for personal happiness and fulfillment, so must an orchestra musician in the face of uninspiring conductors look to their own knowledge of what the music contains, their love of the music, and play to that, not to a tired or mechanical beat. Do not put so much of your musical self in the hands of conductors. Be ready and excited to play for the music and keep adding those unique ideas that you have learned from the more inspiring conductors into your deepening musical understanding and play with your own self-generated involvement.

Every good idea or perceptive musical nuance a fine conductor shows you about a piece you can assimilate into your own understanding of the piece and use it going forward. You can continually build upon your knowledge of how to play the piece and employ all those components when faced with a baton that is not showing you anything more than you already know. You are not a blank slate. You are a widening color palette.

Too many orchestra players have been convinced that they must present a blank slate for the conductor to imprint upon, saying, “well, if he’s not showing anything how can I give anything?” If most of the conductors you are seeing these days are “humdrum” and you find yourself waiting for someone with pizzazz to bring you to life, you have set yourself up for constant disappointment. Don’t allow a conductor do that to your topflight musicianship. The music deserves more than the generic conductor.

A posted response to James Orleans’ comment read:

Your comment about ”blank slate for the conductor to imprint upon” is agonizingly true. At conservatory level we are trained to have no opinion, to play the notes on the page to an extreme level of perfection, and not an ounce of personal expression. And that is expected to be maintained, in a state of neutrality, for the rest of our musical life, simply awaiting the conductor’s magic touch to awaken musicality. Sleeping Beauty in music.