eccomi! sono una brava studentessa, ma sempre occupata.

Che triste!

How time flies when you're in graduate school.

That which I spoke of earlier is well underway. Eccolo, a rough draft of our new mission statement:

The concepts of access, education and communication comprise the foundation upon which Chamber Music Midwest is built. The festival seeks to present high quality concerts at venues decidedly divorced from contemporary concert culture: correctional facilities, mental health clinics, elder care centers, churches. There are no stages and a dialogue between performers and audiences is not only encouraged, but is considered a facet of a successful concert. We seek to dismantle the physical and metaphorical barriers that prevent universal access to music and ideas. We seek to educate through means both conventional (program notes) and dynamic (a blog, Facebook, unorthodox programming). We seek to communicate with our audiences as equals, not--as the musical institution has advocated--within the mentality of binaries: artist versus dilettante, intellectual elite versus uneducated pleasure-seeker.


Recently, my research has taken a decidedly Marxist direction: I've got critical theory coming out of my ears. The basic question of course is how do we go about freeing the intellectually oppressed. For me the answer was access and thus, CMM's new mission statement was born. I'd love to hear what anyone out there has to say about this draft. As you can see, I want more than anything to address the problem of class as it relates to the experience of classical music...

Update: "uneducated pleasure-seeker" seems harsh, right? I want to make obvious the subtle power plays of the institution. I certainly don't feel this way, but I want to make it clear that this sort of attitude is prevalent (maybe "rampant" is an even better word) in the musical, intellectual and certainly academic communities. I'm talking about not only performers, but also arts administration. What is worse is that often, arts organizations trick themselves into believing that they participate in outreach, that they are making themselves accessible to the "masses" when in fact, they only perpetuate the us and them mentality. Free concerts are often held outside the concert hall, thus codifying the aforesaid ideas of class separatism. Furthermore, the repertoire chosen for these concerts often represents only the canonical standards (ie, that which is known to sell tickets): by limiting the public's exposure to new works, the musical establishment only promotes its intellectual supremacy.

When I began writing this update, I did not expect that by the end of the first paragraph I would be so securely perched upon my soap-box. Obviously, this is merely an introduction, but you get the point. I'll conclude by saying that CMM is different from the situation above because we do not (and I hope never will) perform in a traditional concert hall. Additionally, I try always to include a work on each program that would be challenging to the musician and the non-musician alike. The result has been illuminating, in fact. Often, it is the untrained ear that enjoys Berg more than Mozart.

Rant. over.

program notes in sixty minutes or less (vol. 1)

I think the title essentially sums up what is to come.

Excerpt from program for Mozart, Bach, and Brahms. August 15, 2010
Mozart’s 1783 Duo exemplifies the late eighteenth century classical style, specifically with respect to the salon: in its original eighteenth century context, K,423 would have been performed by amateur musicians in an informal setting as a facet of their classical education and cultural socialization. Indeed, in conjunction with the general characteristics of the salon (performances by dilettantes in a setting raucous and radical), a dialectic listening model can be applied to better understand the work. There are numerous moments throughout the work’s three movements wherein musical gestures signifying a conversation between violin and viola could also be understood as Hegelian dialectic (thesis/antithesis/synthesis) or Aristotelian logic (major premise/minor premise/conclusion).

Bach's English Suites offer the contemporary listener further evidence of Bach’s skill in synthesizing elegance and truth from ostensibly antithetical elements: lewd dance forms, and so-called “learned” counterpoint. Often misunderstood as quintessentially baroque, Bach’s music is indeed rife—but, importantly, not wrought—with counterpoint and it is this quality that contributes to the composer’s undisputed place at the front of the early eighteenth century avant-garde. Thus in this sense, the composer can be labeled as baroque, but we must also acknowledge his innovations. The aforementioned “synthesis” could be seen as a subtle signifier of burgeoning revolution: the interaction of “low” dances (the Sarabande and the Courante, for example) with learned musical forms symbolizes the erosion of class distinctions and the onset of the Enlightenment.

nel futuro, saremo...

...non-profit! Clearly, I am bouncing off the walls with excitement regarding such a development. We have hashed and rehashed this possibility in the past, but it never seemed feasible; I can't really say why. Honestly, with the help of my dear father, close family friends adept in navigating the murky waters of charitable organizations, and a manageable measure of clerical elbow grease, I don't think it will be that bad. Famous last words.

My future as a grant-writing violist begins now. As I've said to many over the past couple of days, "I am going to spend my whole life asking institutions for money, I might as well start immediately." So true. However, I am looking forward to giving CMM a little more legitimacy. As a non-profit, we could receive any number of grants--translating in funds to not only cover the cost of hosting the concerts but also to bring in my new colleagues from MI, or old colleagues now relocated. Many options.

Furthermore, In writing the new mission statement (soon to be seen here!) I have had to look closely at that which I want CMM to truly address. We all know that it is not just an ordinary music festival, but specifically, how and why does it differ? For one thing, there is no admission and no one gets paid. Anything. I hope that by exchanging no funds in payment of services rendered, the festival participants feel more like friends and family than the employed. Additionally, the concerts themselves, logistically speaking, are extremely informal. We perform here, there is no stage, and the performers sit in the pews with the audience until their "time." We are all hanging out in the space before the concert and after, and I like to think that the audience members feel comfortable talking to us. Certainly, I don't believe I am going to deconstruct decades upon decades of concert culture and audience/performer power structures, but. Just the idea that the space itself does not support power relationships (that is to say, there is no stage), is an important step.

I think often of new places, new venues to help promote such a deconstruction. Next season is the first step!