“Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.” Potter Stewart
There have been two music/choral ethics incidents in the news in the last week or so. I will not name names or places but you can probably figure out who is who from the details. And I am not going to try to disguise details because I want your opinions.
In all candor, the first incident happened in my own hometown at a repeat of a concert I actually attended the day before. It was a choral and vocal concert, performed by our world-class symphony and chorus, outstanding soloists with our wonderful music director. He seems like a wonderful man but I guess even he has his limits because he stopped the concert. Why? Because an audience member started coughing LOUDLY. The Maestro had had enough and behaved badly, is my understanding. It is difficult to discern how badly since everyone (columnists in our newspapers and others) has given their opinion but none of the rest of us were there so how are we to know.
I do know the place where the patron supposedly coughed was a bad place to cough. I wonder if he (it was a deep cough so it would make sense) could have stifled it. I always worry when I attend a concert, with my allergies flaring up, because I never want to distract others. I swallow, squeeze my eyes shut until tears run down my face and try to breathe through the irritation but sometimes, you just have to cough. However, there are some people who don’t think the way I do at concerts and let ‘er rip; many of them sitting next to ME!
I do see the Maestro’s point about the music and I do see the patron’s point if he truly had to cough. So what should he (either one) have done? Should the Maestro have ignored it? Or was it too loud to ignore? Should the audience member have at least tried to stifle it? Did he try? Or did he just not care? What would you have done, either as the conductor or the audience member?
The second incident concerns the choral director of a symphony chorus which also sings with the symphony at their summer venue. This is a highly auditioned chorus and they are not paid, but are extremely loyal, many of them coming from out of state and planning their vacations around concert schedules. The director has only been with the chorus for about 18 months, and was hired as the chorus’s founding director replacement. The founding director retired due to severe health problems and recently died.
The symphony chorus director recently announced every chorus member would have to re-audition for him. Since the ensemble is over 100 singers, auditions would be in shifts. The first shift was announced as well as what would be required of them in the audition. They were given four weeks to practice. Many members were outraged, especially those who had been singing with the chorus since their founding in 1971. The director wanted to get to know the chorus and who he had to work with before he did anything, which is certainly to his credit.
After the first shift auditioned, it was a bloodbath. Many claimed they were not given enough time to practice or, because their long time director had passed away during their practice time, were too distraught to sing well. Sounds very whiny to me, and you know who I hate whiners! But then, in an article describing what had occurred, one singer complained about how he was treated during his audition. He was asked to sing a certain section of a work the chorus had recently sung and he did. After, the chorus director dissected what he had sung and not in a complimentary fashion. The singer remarked not only did he not win the audition, being informed by form letter, but felt humiliated and battered. Many singers, who are to be auditioned in later shifts, have resigned due to that incident.
It is my opinion the chorus director is within his rights to re-audition the whole chorus. It is also my opinion the chorus director can keep or let go any chorus member he chooses to. But, I have to wonder WHY he would critique someone so harshly if he is not going to keep him, because what’s the point? Your thoughts?
Larry Nickel says
I have often tried to stifle a cough during a concert (either in the audience or in the choir) – it can be torture. I wonder if the concert was being recorded. Did the director carry on or go back to the start of the movement? I recently attended a concert where a mother brought her gurgling mewing infant. Many people turned her way – aghast. So she moved to the back of the auditorium – where the happy baby sounds were even louder. Hey, I love babies but … The director carried on without turning around but I know what she was thinking.
Re-auditioning choirs at the start of a directorship is quite standard. Singers are precious souls and need to be treated with gentle care. But what about singers that have been holding the choir back for years, resting on their long time membership? I’ve had good singers quit the choir because “I cannot stand beside that soprano”. Being put out to pasture is really hard on one’s self esteem – no doubt. I stand close to a bass who is 76 year old – and he is solid – so there is hope for me too.
Marie Grass Amenta says
Gentlemen,
Thank you for your comments. If you’ve been reading my Blog for any length of time, you will recall I detest whining, I detest gossip and I detest choral directors treating their singers badly (and its corollary; singers treating their directors badly). The second situation in today’s blog has a bit of a flavor of all three. And if you will reread my last paragraph, you will see we are all mostly in agreement; mostly.
The main thrust of my weekly Blog is usually CHORAL ETHICS. By that I mean, how we as directors behave in rehearsal, and out, and how our management style of those we direct affects our singers as human beings. Here is a wonderful example of what I mean by that: “I am a human being first, a musician second, a cellist third,” said Pablo Casals, a quote that cellist Yo-Yo Ma thinks sums up the Chicago Symphony Orchestra-sponsored “Citizen Musician” initiative.
I did do some research for today’s Blog but remember, this is NOT meant to be investigative journalism. I read the original Boston Globe article–and it’s offshoots and comments– Lord the comments! It might interest you to know the term “bloodbath” was in that original article. I also read the Blog (Adaptistration) of Drew McManus, an arts management consultant, specializing in orchestras. His take on the whole thing was “this is what you get when you don’t pay musicians.”
Many singers appreciate what the new chorus director is doing and the direction he is trying to take the organization. But what is in question is the way he is doing it. This chorus is a VOLUNTEER chorus, singers are volunteering their time and talents, and are being treated as if it is nothing. They’ve devoted decades of their lives and through “management oversight” are being informed they are not being invited back to sing by unsigned form letters. Disgraceful.
I was shocked to learn this chorus had no real audition/re-audition schedule. Being in Chicago, I do know the Chicago Symphony Chorus (with 95 core paid singers, and others who are also paid, subbing and supplementing, with very few unpaid choristers) has open auditions once a year. ALL SINGERS in good standing audition every other year. They think nothing of re-auditioning, and a good number of singers are 30 and 40 year members. Of course, they are paid, and as such are treated as professionals. And to me, this is the crux of the matter; this chorus we are discussing is NOT paid and are the true Citizen Musicians.
I am not disputing musical excellence, taking the chorus to a new (and higher) level, and weeding out the weaker singers. All things the new director is well within his rights to do. And none of us know what happened in that awful audition, other than what the reporter reported. But we can agree the symphony organization bumbled the whole thing by the way they handled it. And that is a Choral Ethics lesson for all of us.
E. Wayne Abercrombie says
You might have done a bit more research before weighing in on this. the Globe article did not ask questions of a wide sample of chorus members before writing their article, and you are seem to be basing your article on theirs. That’s twice removed from the situation, and you should be aware of that distance if writing a public opinion. The chorus has been in need of serious re-evaluation for quite a while. And while the organization (the BSO) was uncaring in its notification process, Mr. Burton was open from the beginning about his charge and process. While I do not know what went on in the audition itself, having some interaction with Mr. Burton — and knowing others who have had more interaction with him — I find it hard to believe that he would act in the way the person (anonymous) in the Globe article says he did. Unless you dig a bit deeper before offering your opinion on this forum, you risk your column being little more than unhelpful gossip. Choral music is not helped by that.
Ms Kayla B Werlin says
Hi. I’d like to comment on the second situation above. I’d ask that you use neutral language rather than “it was a bloodbath.” The newspaper of record in the city published an article which seemed one sided and inflammatory. My understanding, from other media and from several members of the chorus (some who are returning and some who are not) is that the first round of auditions included singers of greatest concern (maybe a wise choice?), and so it would not be unusual that those would be the ones not invited to return. There have been direct reports from returning members that the higher standards are refreshing and much needed. Some choir members feel inspired and challenged. They’re excited about how rehearsals are led, and ready to rise to the challenge. They have not been well represented in the media. Some very long term choir members feel the new standards are beyond them. And some of them are accepting that reality quietly, but they have not been represented in the media. From my audience perspective, this is an opportunity for a much needed change.
I would agree that there is never an excuse for treating choir members unkindly or disrespectfully, and I can’t comment with any knowledge on that aspect of the situation.
My opinion: the orchestra has a relatively new music director and a brand new choral director, and the symphony has likely given the conductor a mandate to raise the standard of choral performance. Change is hard. Perhaps it’s been handled poorly. I’m looking forward to hearing the results.
Jesse Hasty says
I have been involved in several director searches. One question I would definitely ask is if the prospective director was going to reaudition the current membership. If, on the other hand, I was applying for the position I would make it clear that I planned to reaudition the members. The membership should not have been blind sided. I hope that the oversight occurred inadvertently, but in my experience these things often occur as covert way to cement control of the group or to settle some old scores. I would consider firing a director if indeed he did, out of the blue, insist on a reaudition and then dress down a member as a result of the audition and then throw the member out.