More black music canceled

[brassmedic]

I don't know if this is allowed, given the s*** show in the other thread, so I guess go ahead and delete this if that's what the mods feel like doing.

Yes, more black musicians having opportunities yanked away from them. [sarcasm]I'm sure they're delighted to be freed from the "woke mental plantation", though.[/sarcasm]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainme ... nRtX764c7w

[Digidog]

I'm deeply sorry to say that the new administration's whole project more and more looks exactly like Germany after 1933....

The similarities are becoming so many, including the language used (labelling the inclusion project "repugnant"!) and the combination of pettyness and grandiose reasons motivating the absurd measures, that the label "fascist regime" now seems all too appropriate.

I am so, so sorry that this is happening, and I deplore that it happens to so many people that I love and really care about; my ex GF and her family, my friends, and my contacts; all lovely people whom all live and act within a society I now have to distance myself from - both voluntarily and forced.

[brassmedic]

I'm deeply sorry to say that the new administration's whole project more and more looks exactly like Germany after 1933....

The similarities are becoming so many, including the language used (labelling the inclusion project "repugnant"!) and the combination of pettyness and grandiose reasons motivating the absurd measures, that the label "fascist regime" now seems all too appropriate.

I am so, so sorry that this is happening, and I deplore that it happens to so many people that I love and really care about; my ex GF and her family, my friends, and my contacts; all lovely people whom all live and act within a society I now have to distance myself from - both voluntarily and forced.

It's like a nightmare, but I can't wake up.

[blast]

Brad, I understand your outrage. We are a non political forum. If you can keep on the specific music issues and impacts, you might keep the right side of the line, but there are people here that are looking to see things through a political lens and may pull things towards locking this and other threads.

[Digidog]

Brad, I understand your outrage. We are a non political forum. If you can keep on the specific music issues and impacts, you might keep the right side of the line, but there are people here that are looking to see things through a political lens and may pull things towards locking this and other threads.

....but given the extreme circumstances, this is a position that is really hard to understand.

I mean: When the administration of the country where this board is located makes politics out of every petty little issue they can strike down on, to enforce their divisional view of the world and its inhabitants, and when they turn the very subject of this forum into politics only to segregate, discriminate and violate whatever they can, isn't it very reasonable - highly motivated - that that making of politics turn into the subjects of this very forum?

I also mean, that it isn't like there are a great many sponsors that would be deterred from supporting this board, if there showed up some discussions about so all encompassing events that the very foundations and reasons for this forum are jeopardized.

All too often through history, it isn't the direct actions of the oppressors that enforce a totalitarianism, it is the anticipatory actions of in the beginning unexpressed demands for compliance that enables totalitarian politicians to in the end take full control over a society - to then make the demand for compliance public, outspoken and physically enforced.

[JTeagarden]

I look forward to the exhumation of Minnie Pearl so she can perform at the Kennedy Center.

[musicofnote]

To paraphrase....

"First they came for the transgender community, and I spoke out immediately even though I’m straight and cis, because I’ve read the rest of the f@cking poem."

And yes, they're coming after those pesky trans mice too, accord to POTUS.

P.S. ... how many have visited the birthplace of Sophie and Hans Scholl? Or know who they were?

[Matt K]

I am not going to contradict blast here because he's quite right, but it's a valid point IMO that this does directly affect people, some who may even be on the site and that has never been wholly prohibited (e.g. covid discussions from a few years ago).

We are discussing internally as moderators what, if any clarifications need to be made or potentially policy changes. As I've noted before, our intention is to have productive discussions, centered around trombone and perhaps as general as music broadly. I personally don't see anything objectionable here and there has not been mention of broad scale assertions that a whole class of people have bad intentions.

I will note that from the article:

The 5-year-old project aimed to lower some of the barriers Black composers face in establishing their careers by awarding annual winners a $15,000 commissioning fee; a premiere with the Conservatory, the San Francisco Symphony or the Oakland Symphony; and mentorship from the music directors of those organizations.

...

“The San Francisco Symphony is not impacted by this recent Executive Order and remains fully committed to ensuring that the Emerging Black Composers Project will continue,” they wrote. “We are still working out the details for how the project moves forward, but this project remains important to both the Symphony and SFCM.”

So the net effect of this is the winner will not receive the $15k, but still have all of the other positive benefits? The article only seems to mention who won in previous years, not who won it now (or perhaps that is to be announced?). Given that this was published in the SF Times I would be slightly surprised if a Kickstarter wouldn't raise those funds pretty swiftly... It isn't obvious to me who received the $15k from the DOE to then have it distributed. It seems like that entity should have a Kickstarter or similar place to donate fo the fund.

[robcat2075]

If they want to genuinely assist a black or any other composer, these sort of once-and-done events are hopeless gestures.

Repeat performance are what make a composer. The problem with nearly all new music today is that no one wants to hear it twice.

Ricardo Muti noted in an interview that while he's led the premiere of a new work nearly every year of his career, including with the CSO... none of them have gained traction in the music world.

The San Francisco Symphony is not impacted by this recent Executive Order

They think.

The SFS, like nearly all orchestras, has an IRS-awarded non-profit status. Rules governing non-profits such as non-discrimination rules could be employed to yank that status. It won't matter if there is no such rule yet, one could be conveniently made.

Would the IRS do that?

The IRS is now under direct control of the White House and the laws crafted to prevent political use of the IRS can now be legally ignored. Remember that last year the Supreme Court gave Presidents full immunity for all Presidential actions. A President now need do no more than assert a Presidential angle for any act that would normally be illegal, even murder.

It is as if there is no law any more.

[mbarbier]

If they want to genuinely assist a black or any other composer, these sort of once-and-done events are hopeless gestures.

Repeat performance are what make a composer. The problem with nearly all new music today is that no one wants to hear it twice.

Ricardo Muti noted in an interview that while he's led the premiere of a new work nearly every year of his career, including with the CSO... none of them have gained traction in the music world.

The San Francisco Symphony is not impacted by this recent Executive Order

They think.

The SFS, like nearly all orchestras, has an IRS-awarded non-profit status. Rules governing non-profits such as non-discrimination rules could be employed to yank that status. It won't matter if there is no such rule yet, one could be conveniently made.

Would the IRS do that?

The IRS is now under direct control of the White House and the laws crafted to prevent political use of the IRS can now be legally ignored. Remember that last year the Supreme Court gave Presidents full immunity for all Presidential actions. A President now need do no more than assert a Presidential angle for any act that would normally be illegal, even murder.

It is as if there is no law any more.

Whole I agree that repeat performances are where it's at and is the hardest part of getting traction as a composer, it's simply not true at all that it's a hopeless gesture. The chosen composers get the CV line of having been commissioned by the San Francisco Symphony. That existing in ones bio makes a HUGE difference. It helps significantly if one is applying for composition jobs or has one and is facing a tenure review. Orchestras are by their nature conservative so they rarely commission people who don't have an orchestral commission under their belt, which this provides. Those are two places where the actually money, much more so than repeat performances. The other door it opens are European composition competitions which pretty much all require an orchestra piece, which is common over there and pretty rare, outside of student pieces, here.

Muti is right that often those works don't gain traction, often because they aren't good. A conductor friend Anthony Parnther (who does a lot of repeat commissions) made a good point that people often feel like the one orchestra commission they get is their one shot so they throw in all the ideas rather than writing their best piece. He makes a point to repeatedly commission people, especially those whose piece didn't quite work, so they have a chance to work through it and learn how to write for orchestra. Bit off topic, but feel relevant to the point about repeat performances.

Another part of it is, speaking from personal experience, who write a piece like and it doesn't get played again, but various members of the orchestra like and then they commission you for smaller pieces and relationships grow from that.

In addition to someone now losing 12k for deeply stupid and hateful reasons, they lose a significant amount of access. And the access is what really has the chance to change their career long term and adds another layer of cruelty to the choice the government has made.

Fully and depressingly agree with your last sentence.

Not trying to be be argumentative, I've been told my digital tone isn't great...it's just a really really helpful program that has a number of benefits that aren't as obvious. Really sad situation.

[Digidog]

The IRS is now under direct control of the White House and the laws crafted to prevent political use of the IRS can now be legally ignored. Remember that last year the Supreme Court gave Presidents full immunity for all Presidential actions. A President now need do no more than assert a Presidential angle for any act that would normally be illegal, even murder.

It is as if there is no law any more.

That is a truly terrifying prospect! Historically this is one of the first thing a totalitarian-in-being does: to through legal means gain the control over state functions and means to use at will and indiscriminately. No politician I know of historically whom through any means has gained that extent of control, has refrained from using it against opponents and displeasing persons or phenomenons.

Mr. Toupee will use that control and those powers to quell whomever and whatever displeases him, or his ilk. He has talked about it for years and he has said he will, so there's no question about that it's only a matter of time before repression through state sets in.

[brassmedic]

So the net effect of this is the winner will not receive the $15k, but still have all of the other positive benefits? The article only seems to mention who won in previous years, not who won it now (or perhaps that is to be announced?). Given that this was published in the SF Times I would be slightly surprised if a Kickstarter wouldn't raise those funds pretty swiftly... It isn't obvious to me who received the $15k from the DOE to then have it distributed. It seems like that entity should have a Kickstarter or similar place to donate fo the fund.

I'm not seeing where you got that. The article says the program was "paused". The way I read that, it means they aren't doing it anymore. They are hoping to get the San Francisco Symphony to run the program so that it wouldn't be funded by the federal government and therefore wouldn't be subject to the federal memo, but that hasn't happened yet. (And as Robcat pointed out, that might not necessarily stop the Feds from retaliating.)

I thought they did mention the most recent winner, and that they will go ahead with the performance. I would assume he was already given the prize money:

For now, at least one more EBCP work will reach fruition, by Tyler Taylor, the most recent winner.

“The San Francisco Symphony looks forward to giving the world premiere performance of 2024 winner Tyler Taylor’s new work during the 2025-26 Season,” the joint statement from the Symphony and the Conservatory said.

[brassmedic]

If they want to genuinely assist a black or any other composer, these sort of once-and-done events are hopeless gestures.

Repeat performance are what make a composer. The problem with nearly all new music today is that no one wants to hear it twice.

Ricardo Muti noted in an interview that while he's led the premiere of a new work nearly every year of his career, including with the CSO... none of them have gained traction in the music world.

Mattie already said it, but I don't think it's "hopeless" at all. Getting their music performed in a major venue could be immensely helpful to an up-and-coming composer. Sure, it's not going to guarantee a career; it's not American Idol. But I wouldn't say "hopeless".

[Kbiggs]

Brad, I understand your outrage. We are a non political forum. If you can keep on the specific music issues and impacts, you might keep the right side of the line, but there are people here that are looking to see things through a political lens and may pull things towards locking this and other threads.

I know I'm stating the obvious here, but this is a difficult line to hold. These are exceptional times, and people are upset and motivated to action regardless of political leanings.

Music, like all art, is often political, even when the origins of a particular piece are no longer relevant, i.e., Beethoven's Fidelio and Leonore overtures, or Mozart's Marriage of Figaro.

I'm not saying we should prohibit threads that involve political stuff--we, as a community, need to know about how politics affect our art and livelihood, and we need a place to discuss it (not argue or name-call).

I guess we'll all need to act with some restraint, and we'll need to trust that the moderators will step in when needed.

[robcat2075]

Getting their music performed in a major venue could be immensely helpful to an up-and-coming composer. Sure, it's not going to guarantee a career; it's not American Idol. But I wouldn't say "hopeless".

Being premiered by the Chicago Symphony is about as big as you can get, and yet it consistently gets them nothing.

It isn't enough that a major ensemble will play something. The music must be something the audience would want to hear again. Somehow that element has been lost.

[brassmedic]

Getting their music performed in a major venue could be immensely helpful to an up-and-coming composer. Sure, it's not going to guarantee a career; it's not American Idol. But I wouldn't say "hopeless".

Being premiered by the Chicago Symphony is about as big as you can get, and yet it consistently gets them nothing.

It isn't enough that a major ensemble will play something. The music must be something the audience would want to hear again. Somehow that element has been lost.

I would say if you're counting on one piece being played over and over as the only way to build a career, you're doing it wrong. That wasn't even a thing in the past, and the pieces that we do perform over and over are classics that have withstood the test of time.

[mbarbier]

Getting their music performed in a major venue could be immensely helpful to an up-and-coming composer. Sure, it's not going to guarantee a career; it's not American Idol. But I wouldn't say "hopeless".

Being premiered by the Chicago Symphony is about as big as you can get, and yet it consistently gets them nothing.

It isn't enough that a major ensemble will play something. The music must be something the audience would want to hear again. Somehow that element has been lost.

Been commissioned by the CSO opens a ton of doors and has the potential to be an incredibly important stepping stone in their career. No one piece makes (or breaks) one's career, but it can have a significant effect, especially the long term effect on how seriously ones CV is then taken. It's a bit like subbing with the CSO as a trombonist, it doesn't make your career but it adds that line that can make the difference between whether or not you get past the resume round at an audition or teaching job application, for example.

On the audience side, being something people want to hear again often has very little to do with it sadly. There are so many factors like duration, instrumentation, ability for your publisher to advocate for you, etc. I'm in that process rn with Clara Iannotta's concerto- we've done it a few times and people really like it, but we've had multiple performances fall through because of practical factors, including the orchestra just deciding to commission her to write a new piece cause it's more exciting. But those line items have had a significant effect on our careers, regardless of the additional performance issues.

[BGuttman]

A big factor in getting multiple plays of new music (whether written by a Black or not) often becomes one of royalties. Many of the lower tier orchestras could be a source of multiple play opportunities for new works but the licensing agencies tend to extract an arm and a leg in royalty fees -- something low tier orchestras (like the one I played in) can not usually afford. I bet more new music would be played if it only cost $150 per performance rather than $650.

[mbarbier]

A big factor in getting multiple plays of new music (whether written by a Black or not) often becomes one of royalties. Many of the lower tier orchestras could be a source of multiple play opportunities for new works but the licensing agencies tend to extract an arm and a leg in royalty fees -- something low tier orchestras (like the one I played in) can not usually afford. I bet more new music would be played if it only cost $150 per performance rather than $650.

The cost and frequent lack of flexibility there is definitely an unfortunate contribution to the difficulty of repeat performances. It's really unfortunate. And for recordings - learned that one the hard way with an unrecorded Gorecki piece- publisher policy is to charge 4x for mechanical licenses if it's a first recording. No wonder so many works remain unrecorded. Wild.

[robcat2075]

Being premiered by the Chicago Symphony is about as big as you can get, and yet it consistently gets them nothing.

It isn't enough that a major ensemble will play something. The music must be something the audience would want to hear again. Somehow that element has been lost.

I would say if you're counting on one piece being played over and over as the only way to build a career, you're doing it wrong. That wasn't even a thing in the past, and the pieces that we do perform over and over are classics that have withstood the test of time.

Repeat performance WAS a thing.

Beethoven did not become famous for his symphonies by writing them so that they got played once and then discarded. His symphonies usually got multiple performances in his lifetime and some like his 5th were runaway hits... in his lifetime!

Likewise for his piano sonatas. He did not write those for once and done. They were eagerly sought out and performed when published.

Likewise for the works of Brahms, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Rossini, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, (yes, even) Bruckner and many others. They all had substantial public success in their lifetime and didn't have to withstand "the test of time" to finally be appreciated long after they were gone.

They all had some misfires but they absolutely were aiming for something that would merit repeat performances.

[LeTromboniste]

I would say if you're counting on one piece being played over and over as the only way to build a career, you're doing it wrong. That wasn't even a thing in the past, and the pieces that we do perform over and over are classics that have withstood the test of time.

Repeat performance WAS a thing.

Beethoven did not become famous for his symphonies by writing them so that they got played once and then discarded. His symphonies usually got multiple performances in his lifetime and some like his 5th were runaway hits... in his lifetime!

Likewise for his piano sonatas. He did not write those for once and done. They were eagerly sought out and performed when published.

Likewise for the works of Brahms, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Rossini, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, (yes, even) Bruckner and many others. They all had substantial public success in their lifetime and didn't have to withstand "the test of time" to finally be appreciated long after they were gone.

They all had some misfires but they absolutely were aiming for something that would merit repeat performances.

It's important to remember that the 19th century was still an era of performer-composers. Some of these guys had positions as conductors/directors that gave them both the security and regularl income to not have to worry about the success of their compositions, as well as the visibility and fame to attract commissions and repeat performances. Others were big name soloists who were touring all over the place, and again, had that fame as performers. Others still had patrons that provided for them. And still, their pieces weren't being performed all over the world every year. Certainly some saw repeat performances, but nowhere near the scale at which the "workhorse" pieces today keep getting programmed. There was WAY more new music being premiered back then.

The situation for composers today is very different.

[brassmedic]

And still, their pieces weren't being performed all over the world every year. Certainly some saw repeat performances, but nowhere near the scale at which the "workhorse" pieces today keep getting programmed. There was WAY more new music being premiered back then.

That was the point I was trying to make, but you stated it better than I did.

[brassmedic]

Likewise for the works of Brahms, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Rossini, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, (yes, even) Bruckner and many others. They all had substantial public success in their lifetime and didn't have to withstand "the test of time" to finally be appreciated long after they were gone.

I never said they did, and I never said they weren't famous in their lifetimes. In fact, that's not even close to what I said. But no, concerts back then were not "greatest hits of the last 3 centuries" like they are now. Composers were very prolific, and new music was programmed constantly. It most certainly was not the same few warhorses over and over like it is today.

But this is getting off track. I think giving an opportunity to have their music performed is helpful to young composers, especially black composers, who have always been under-represented in the orchestral music world. Or was helpful, since it currently is not happening. Not hopeless. So we will have to agree to disagree, I guess.

[robcat2075]

It's important to remember that the 19th century was still an era of performer-composers. Some of these guys had positions as conductors/directors that gave them both the security and regularl income to not have to worry about the success of their compositions, as well as the visibility and fame to attract commissions and repeat performances. Others were big name soloists who were touring all over the place, and again, had that fame as performers. Others still had patrons that provided for them. And still, their pieces weren't being performed all over the world every year. Certainly some saw repeat performances, but nowhere near the scale at which the "workhorse" pieces today keep getting programmed. There was WAY more new music being premiered back then.

The situation for composers today is very different.

It's important to remember that in the 19th Century... any artist could only be in one place at one time. There was no broadcasting, no recordings, no internet to spread their work beyond the room they were in at the moment.

None of those people became famous composers by being the only person promoting their music, or even the leading person promoting their music. And yet they became acclaimed in their lifetime, usually at a young age.

They became famous because OTHER people heard their music and talked it up to other performers. That's probably how Beethoven and Brahms (neither a notable conductor) always remained more significant as composers than Liszt.

But there is nothing stopping a modern composer from pursuing those self-promotion side careers you mention. Being a working conductor is hard today but it was hard back then. Being a touring musician is hard today but it was hard back then.

There was WAY more new music being premiered back then

Yeah. Some of it was good enough to stick, some of it was not, but there wasn't a 99.9% failure rate. Audiences then recognized compelling music fairly astutely and generally made choices that are not wildly different from our assessments today. The work that is successful today was successful back then.

You say the famous composers weren't as famous back then as they are today? Any composer today would kill for even the diminished level of notoriety of a Massenet or a Bruch and the number of performances they were getting.

The problem for today's new music is that nearly none of it is good enough to stick. The audience hears their work... and don't talk it up.

It's uncompelling and forgettable... it's not going to be magically rediscovered 100 years from now.

Modern composers have far more opportunities today to be widely heard and promoted and yet they still can't make a dent in the audience's judgement.

Something has been lost and it's not the audience's fault.

[LeTromboniste]

The classical music of the time were the pop stars of today. There were far fewer artforms to compete against, and far fewer people in the classical music world to compete with. These guys all knew each other. There's just no comparison with today's world, and any attempt to reduce it to single issues, especially chalking it up to "today's composers are not writing good music" is really simplistic. It's also not true, there's a lot of really good and compelling music being written.
As someone who likes to programme more obscure works of the past, that are however masterful, I can tell you, it's virtually impossible to sell that idea to orchestras and festivals. Unless you're a huge name that will fill the hall no matter what you play (and even then...), they will always prefer going with a safer programming choice and take one of the overplayed masterpieces. Now for living composers, add the bias against new music to that...

By the way Brahms did have a conducting career, that was his day job in Vienna. And Beethoven had to self-organise benefit concerts to raise money for himself and premiere and promote his new works. The only way this happens today is with students orchestras (which won't reach much of an impactful audience) or if you get a huge grant to organise a concert to showcase your own music.

It's an ecosystem problem. It's interesting that when you look at classical music genres that are less conservative and where room is given to living composers (or even, where it's expected the music be recent), they're thriving. I'm taking choral music, concert band music, and if course film and video games music. That's where the money is.