SEEN AND HEARD INTERNATIONAL

The Seattle Symphony Saga by Bernard Jacobson (BJ)


Strife, the ancient Greeks used to say, is the mother of all things. Certainly in our time she has engendered a slew of negative journalism on the subject of the supposed state of war vitiating relations between Gerard Schwarz, music director of the Seattle Symphony, and his players. And an article by Daniel J. Wakin and James R. Oestrich published in the New York Times on December 16 portrayed the situation in near-apocalyptic terms, depicting an organization that “has carried disharmony to new heights, lurching from crisis to crisis.”

As is usually the case in such matters, the true state of play is elusive. But the journalistic picture has gone well beyond any ascertainable proof, and I think it important at this juncture to draw attention to some of the deficiencies of the Times article.

For one thing, it would surely have been a good idea for the writers to talk to at least one member of the orchestra’s board, which is said to have profited in recent months from an infusion of dynamic new leadership; but the article offers no indication that this was done. Most of what Messrs. Dakin and Oestrich tell us is, indeed, old news, restating points that were made in the Seattle press months ago.

That does not necessarily invalidate their argument. But there is a distressing tendency in their writing to say things in a way that sounds negative, yet can be read to very different purpose. In outlining, for example, a court case that has been brought against the orchestra by one of its violinists, who charges Mr. Schwarz with systematic harassment,  they tell us that “[a]t least 15 current or former members of the Seattle Symphony have signed sworn declarations on behalf of that member.” But taking into account that qualification–“current or former members” (my italics)–15 is a distinctly underwhelming number; if the state of morale and opinion were as dire as the article suggests, you might have expected support from a rather higher proportion of the orchestra’s 88 musicians.

Then there is a paragraph about the appointment last March of the orchestra’s new executive director that carries an unpleasant, and I think unjustified, hint of corruption. Mr. Schwarz, the authors of the article tell us, “was pushing an old friend: Thomas Philion, the president of the Eastern Music Festival in Greensboro, N.C., where Mr. Schwarz was the principal conductor. Mr. Philion was hired by the Seattle Symphony in March; Mr. Schwarz was named music director of the festival in September.” But “old friend” is an overstatement. Mr. Philion, he tells me, has known Mr. Schwarz for only five years. He also resigned from the festival immediately upon his Seattle appointment, and took no part in the festival’s decision to offer Mr. Schwarz the music directorship. Nor does he accept the statement by Pamela Rolfe, who resigned as recruiter in the orchestra’s search for a new executive director, “blaming the orchestra for not revealing the extent of its financial problems”: “They were completely up front with me about those problems,” Mr. Philion states–“I can’t imagine that it was any different with the other candidates, and I don’t understand why she would have said that.”

One of the most troubling aspects of the Times article is its bandying about of statistics from a survey of the players carried out before Mr. Schwarz’s contract was extended by the board–a survey about which both the board and the players’ representatives signed an agreement of confidentiality, apparently owing to doubts about its methodology. The statistics that have been made public in contravention of that confidentiality agreement do, it is true, indicate a majority of players in favor of a change in artistic leadership. Given that Mr. Schwarz has been at the orchestra’s helm by now for 23 years, it would be surprising if he had not acquired some opposition in the ranks. I have worked with orchestras in this country and in Europe, and I have yet to encounter one that revealed no rumblings of discontent with “the Maestro,” and to judge from my own conversations with some of the musicians, this particular maestro still has more supporters in the Seattle Symphony than the Times writers’ very limited coverage of such support would suggest. My belief is that there is a small number of malcontents prosecuting its vendetta with the conductor, probably an equally small number of Schwarz supporters disgusted with that group’s methods, and a large majority somewhere in the middle who do not have strong feelings about the conflict and simply want to get on with their work–which is how it is with most orchestras in the world.

All the acrimony is the more regrettable at a time when the orchestra’s budget is balanced, its subscription base has expanded vastly since Mr. Schwarz took over, it is one of the few American orchestras active in the recording field, and–most importantly in my mind–its artistic standards are higher than ever, and comparable with any to be found among the competition. “Much of the orchestra’s success,” the Times article concedes, “can be attributed to its conductor.” It is a pity that that acknowledgement should have been buried in an altogether too public and altogether too negatively insinuating washing of a few frustrated people’s dirty linen.


Bernard Jacobson

Back to Top                                                    Cumulative Index Page