The
Institut de Recherche et Coordination
Acoustique et Musique (IRCAM)
In
Paris in the 1970s President George
Pompidou invited Boulez to create
and direct IRCAM and provided the
funds and suitable accommodation for
it within the newly built Pompidou
Centre. Boulez’s objective was to
bring science and art together in
order to widen instrumentation and
rejuvenate musical language. He made
certain that one of the organisation’s
major objectives would be the interface
of computer technology and acoustic
performance and he therefore encouraged
composer/performer collaboration at
various stages of the creative process.
The software IRCAM has developed for
sound modelling, transformation, and
synthesis has been designed for use
with instrumentalists and singers
as the sound input for music compositions
Because
of his own compositional methods and
those of a number of his contemporaries
Boulez was the first, as early as
the mid-nineteen fifties to propose
that orchestras should be reorganised.
The normal layout of the ‘romantic’
19th century orchestra
was no longer suited to the very different
assembly of instruments composers
now required. For example: a score
might not require any violins and
violas, but call for considerably
more brass or woodwind instruments
than are found in the normal symphony
orchestra. Or the score might require
only one flute but call for six clarinets
(including an Eb, a bass and a contra-bass
clarinet), two cor anglais and a contra
bassoon. At times a composition would
require no more than about 25 or 30
of the players in a normal symphony
orchestra and at others a far larger
number divided into two or three separate
ensembles.
In
1968, in a lecture, Boulez was already
putting forward the notion that ‘the
orchestra should be replaced by a
kind of consortium of performers drawn
on for ad hoc purposes. All that is
very easy to say; and it is true that
solutions of this kind can well be
imagined … (and of course) there is
an economic factor in music, and this
factor always tells in favour of conservatism.
By this I mean that in any organisation
qualified for an activity of this
kind it is very difficult to persuade
people – simply from the point of
view of intrinsic organisation – that
things can be organised differently
without creating major problems in
any well-regulated economy.’
IRCAM
has three primary missions: to promote
both the creation and the development
of contemporary repertoire by commissioning
new works and performing them regularly;
to increase the audience for the music
of 20th and 21st
centuries, through a diffusion policy
which features a season of concerts
in Paris, as well as international
tours and audio-visual recordings;
to contribute to training and professional
placement for young musicians, instrumentalists,
conductors and composers through workshops
and score-reading sessions.
The
instrumentation of IRCAM’s Ensemble
Intercontemporaine comprises thirty-one
soloists (two flutes, two oboes, two
clarinets, bass clarinet, two bassoons,
two French horns, two trumpets, two
trombones, tuba, three percussion,
three keyboards, harp, three violins,
two violas, two cellos, contrabass).
Except that it has a very small string
section it remains to the present
day very much like many chamber ensembles
that only play the classical, romantic
and early 20th century
repertoire.
The
Future for Symphony Orchestras
The
financial problems facing the costly,
labour-intensive symphony orchestras
everywhere, especially in Britain,
the demands by the critics for the
performance of more contemporary music
and the increasing dominance of pop
music on the air-waves and recordings,
were by 1980 beginning to cause some
concern. When, in 1985, the NCOS Orchestra
was invited to play at the XVII International
Society for Music in Education (ISME)
Conference in Innsbruck I was asked
to deliver a paper. I decided that
the question of the symphony orchestra’s
future was important and was a topic
on which I might be able to make a
useful contribution.
Even
though Boulez had tried while in charge
of the BBC Symphony Orchestra and
the New York Philharmonic Orchestra
to effect some changes, he had – as
he had predicted – been unsuccessful.
As a former orchestral musician, and
at that time Director of the NCOS
preparing young musicians for a profession
that was already recruiting far fewer
musicians than the number of students
who were at conservatoires all wanting
to become orchestral musicians, I
was naturally more concerned about
their future than Boulez had been.
He wanted to create the conditions
that would make it possible for the
performance of new compositions that
the rigidity of conventional symphony
orchestra does not allow.
I
chose as the subject for my talk ‘The
Symphony Orchestra: into the 21st
century’. I thought that in this forum
of educators it might be possible
to bring my ideas to those who in
their turn might influence younger
musicians to consider how the symphony
orchestra might be reorganised so
as to become sufficiently flexible
to respond to the demands of present-day
composers.
The
repertoire of the symphony orchestras
was also being restricted by the ‘baroque’
orchestras playing the music of Haydn,
Mozart and Beethoven in what they
claimed to be the historically ‘authentic’
style of performance, on the kind
of instruments that would have been
available when their compositions
were written. The idea that perhaps
the music of later composers, Liszt,
Brahms and Tchaikovsky should be played
on instruments still in their time
less perfected than those now available
was being contemplated. The music
of the period before the rise of the
orchestra as we have known it from
about the time of Haydn was also becoming
more popular.
At
the same time young musicians, especially
the best of them, were increasingly
preferring the freedom of expression
that playing ‘chamber music’ provided.
Not only in string quartets and the
like, but in string, wood-wind, brass,
percussion and mixed ensembles of
various sizes, playing baroque, classical,
romantic and contemporary music. Quite
often they performed in venues other
than those normally associated with
concert giving: hospitals, old people’s
homes and prisons, as well as for
music clubs.
At
the Conference I put forward the idea
that the orchestra should become a
‘resource centre’: a much larger group
of musicians who would have the opportunity
of playing a number of different kinds
of music in various sized ensembles.
It should no longer be necessary to
decide to play in an orchestra and
have little or no chance of playing
chamber music: nor should those choosing
to play chamber music be denied the
delight of playing the great orchestral
repertoire. And this resource centre
should also include composers. Some
might be composers-in-residence, as
we had at the NCOS, others might also
want to play in the orchestra or an
ensemble. Their compositions could
be tried out, with experiments and
changes made in circumstances where
there would be no risk to their reputation.
Nor would there be the cost of rehearsals
and mounting a public performance
which might attract only a small audience.
Within the area in which the ‘centre’
was resident those who wished to teach
could provide advanced tuition in
whatever branch of music they had
expertise.
The
Wheatland Foundation
The
following year, 1986, I was invited
to be a participant in another conference.
This was to be organised by the Wheatland
Foundation, which had been founded
in the previous year by Ann Getty
and Lord Weidenfeld to support programmes
in the arts and the humanities. Ann
Getty’s husband, Gordon Getty, was
then the head of Getty Oil, which
he had just sold that year to Texaco
for 10 billion dollars. He was also
a classical music composer. This may
be why the Foundation’s first conference,
held in Venice, had been about the
future for opera. Jerusalem had been
chosen to be the venue for this conference.
It was to consider the future for
the symphony orchestra.
Those
of us from London flew to Jerusalem
by El-Al, the Israeli air-line, in
the kind of comfort I had not experienced
before (nor have I since). My wife
and I had three times as much space
as is normally provided on Business
class or that I have seen walking
through First class. We each had a
large armchair and there was another
one between us on which they placed
the tray when they served us a splendid
lunch. On arrival at Jerusalem airport
we were whisked away by taxi to the
King David Hotel. Our room, overlooking
the Old City, was extremely large
and luxurious and when we arrived
we found a large bowl of strawberries
and a bottle of champagne in an ice-bucket
awaiting us. The next four days were
spent in similar conditions and included
a traditional Friday Shabat Dinner
with the ebullient Mayor of Jerusalem
Teddy Kollick, an Arab-style Dinner
where we were seated on floor cushions
and served by waiters in traditional
costume, a splendid meal in the Dormition
Abbey and finally a grand Farewell
Dinner.
On
one day our meetings were held in
a hotel near the Dead Sea. While our
sessions were in progress our spouses
were taken on a guided tour of the
Dead Sea and Masada Rock, where Herod’s
royal citadel had been. The citadel
was the site of the most dramatic
and symbolic act in Jewish history,
when the rebels chose mass suicide
rather than submit to Roman capture.
The day after the conference ended
we had a reception at the Knesset
where we met President Chaim Herzog.
To our surprise he addressed us in
English with a pronounced Irish accent.
Only later we learned that he had
been born and lived in Belfast until
he was seventeen.
The
Foundation had invited a number of
composers, conductors, performers,
orchestra managers, producers of music
programmes in radio and TV, agents
and a critic. The conference director
was Peter Diamand who had been Director
of the Holland and Edinburgh Festivals
as well as General Manager of the
RPO for a few years. At the time of
the conference he was the artistic
adviser to the Orchestre de Paris.
Also present were Mr and Mrs Getty,
Sir Isaiah Berlin and Lord Weidenfeld.
It
was intended that the conference should
examine and define the role of symphony
orchestras in the changing environment
for the performing arts; consider
whether the contemporary orchestra
was, as it had been called ‘an obsolescent
instrument’; how it might evolve and
change to meet the new needs of composers
and performers and how it should come
to terms with its dwindling audience
and sometimes difficult relationship
with the recording industry. How the
education and training of orchestral
musicians might be improved was also
on the agenda.
The
largest number of those taking part
in the discussions were managers of
the major orchestras in Europe and
the USA. They included those from
the New York Philharmonic, the Los
Angeles Philharmonic, the San Francisco
Symphony, the Israel Philharmonic,
the Royal Concertgebouw, the Orchestre
de Paris, the Zurich Tonhalle Orchestra,
the Philharmonia Orchestra of London
and two youth orchestras, the European
Community Youth Orchestra and the
German Philharmonic Youth Orchestra.
There were four composers Pierre Boulez
(also, of course, a conductor), Henri
Dutilleux, Alexander Goehr and Joseph
Tal. The conductors were Gary Bertini,
Semyon Bychkov, Lawrence Foster and
Catherine French and the performers
Isaac Stern, who also acted as chairman,
Alfred Brendel, and three orchestral
musicians.
There
was general agreement that the present
orchestra structure needed to change
in some way if it was to satisfy the
many composers who no longer found
the standard classical/romantic orchestra
met their needs. What so many composers
now wanted was an assembly of instruments,
very different for each piece, that
they had decided their composition
required. Unless the repertoire the
orchestras now relied on to attract
an audience was to be abandoned how
could the symphony orchestra satisfy
those who were demanding that the
orchestras play what composers were
now writing? The fact that even those
contemporary compositions that were
written using the conventional orchestra
did not attract an audience was never
faced. The conservatoires were blamed
for not encouraging students to learn
enough music composed after 1950:
their education was too limited and
composer/performer co-operation was
not encouraged; the musicians in the
orchestras needed to change their
attitude to performing new music;
the unions had to be persuaded to
allow greater flexibility in contractual
agreements; and finally, audiences
needed to be more musically educated:
they had increased in number (but
were now declining) though not in
quality.
Anna
Lindal, the assistant leader of the
Stockholm Philharmonic, thought that
the orchestra should become much more
flexible, dividing into groups as
required. Several managers pointed
out that additional woodwind, brass
and percussion players were nearly
always called for and that these extras
players would be very expensive. Also
that quite often a number of those
contracted full-time by the orchestra
would be unemployed, but still have
to be paid. Pierre Boulez made the
same point and referred to his own
attempts with the BBC Symphony and
the New York Philharmonic. Because
of contractual difficulties and the
resistance of some of the players
when they were required to play in
positions and with responsibilities
they were not being paid for, it had
not proved practical in either of
the orchestras.
Pierre
Vozlinsky, the General Administrator
of the Orchestre de Paris, asked if
the Foundation could take the initiative
and launch an international campaign,
so that information would reach professional
circles ‘to gradually move over to
a system of individual service’. He
pointed out that the discussions had
clearly shown that there was no other
way if the expense of performing contemporary
music were not to be an insurmountable
obstacle. This suggestion was not
taken up by any of the other orchestra
managers. No doubt the thought of
having to engage an orchestra from
a free-lance pool for every concert
was too daunting. Of course it is
not in the power of composers or performers
to initiate action that would change
the structure of the orchestra. Only
the Boards of management and their
managers were in a position to do
that.
Even
though Peter Diamand, as Conference
Director, several times drew our attention
to the need to arrive at a recommendation
for the Foundation to consider, and
after a very great deal of discussion,
the Conference remained unable to
come to any positive conclusion on
the all-important and central question
regarding the future for the symphony
orchestra: ‘how it might evolve and
change to meet the new needs of composers
and performers’.
The
Conference also devoted quite a lot
of its time to considering the training
that should be provided for those
who wanted to become orchestral musicians.
Several speakers said that there was
evidence that many of the very best
young players leaving conservatoires
now no longer wanted to play in an
orchestra all the time or for the
whole of their career. Anna Lindal
said that from her own experience,
having only been in the profession
for six years, she knew what it was
like for a newcomer coming into an
orchestra for the first time. After
talking to many other young musicians
she felt that the training of musicians
for the orchestra was inadequate.
She
went on to explain that despite the
fact that one is already an expert
on one’s own instrument and comes
with a great deal of enthusiasm, the
training one has received gives little
guidance as to how to play in an orchestra.
Very little responsible orchestral
work has been offered and students
are seldom required to work to a deadline
or a target and never have the opportunity
of playing alongside a professional
orchestral musician. ‘It is usually
the case that training takes place
in the orchestra itself.’ Lindal thought
that it ought to be in the interest
of orchestras themselves to found
their own orchestra schools so as
to be certain of continuity and quality
in their profession. ‘But we need
not only continuity in the profession
but also change, dynamism and new
ideas.’ It should happen naturally
that the young generation brings this
with them. ‘One must look far and
wide to find training for a profession
which is more conservative.’ We are
trained in a tradition, which at best
belongs to the preceding generation.
My
own experience, teaching at the Royal
College of Music, bore out all that
she had said. My pupils left college
unprepared for life in the profession.
I also remember that when I had been
a member of the examining panel for
the ARCM Diploma some members of the
panel were unprepared to give a good
mark to students who chose to present
a contemporary work as their ‘own
choice’ if it employed some of the
new techniques, on the grounds that
it did not give a proper basis for
assessing their ability.
It
was suggested that perhaps the Wheatland
Foundation might explore the possibility
of supporting projects specifically
concerned with the education of orchestral
musicians and assist, politically
or economically any developments that
might arise.
Having
considered the preparation of young
musicians for the orchestral profession
the Conference turned its attention
to the conditions then prevailing
for those who were currently employed
in the orchestras. What were the musicians
themselves concerned about and were
there ways the management believed
things could be improved?
Isaac
Stern thought that orchestral musicians
were often required to work longer
hours than was conducive to good performance
while Pierre Boulez felt that what
was destructive was playing ‘fifty-two
weeks, concert after concert, in exactly
the same way, the kind of routine
where one week cannot be distinguished
from another, one day from the next’.
Peter Pastreich, Executive Director
of the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra,
responded by saying that ‘everyone
knows that routine means playing with
boring conductors and playing in a
boring way. With the right conductor
it doesn’t matter how many concerts
you have to play’.
A
number of speakers were concerned,
as Isaac Stern said, ‘to ameliorate
the tyranny of union rules, so often
binding in freedom of work preparation
and time and cost’. Peter Pastreich
disagreed. ‘No recording session would
end prematurely if we just said beforehand
that we’re willing to pay overtime.
It is a question of money rather than
of union rules. The same is true for
rehearsals. If we just said to the
orchestra "keep on playing for as
long as the conductor is conducting,
we’ll pay’’, the rehearsals would
simply go into overtime’. I was surprised
to hear this from a manager, but I’m
sure most players would agree – as
long as the conductor was not too
boring!
The
status of musicians in society, the
degree of stress players experienced
and the degree to which self-management
could be acceptable, were all considered.
Apart from the ‘tyranny of the unions’
nothing stirred so much emotion as
the concept of self-management and
far more time was spent on this subject
than it probably warranted.
In
reporting the views of the members
of a select committee formed to discuss
Education and Youth Orchestras, Joseph
Polisi, the President of the Julliard
School of Music in New York, told
the Conference that ‘one of the committee’s
major assumptions was that although
proficiency must exist to ensure a
successful professional life, technical
ability must be viewed as only a means
to an end: a conscious, creative process
of music making. The concept of orchestral
self-governance was agreed to be one
way to achieve a sense of personal
worth and responsibility as a musician
and a member of society’.
Self-governance,
the notion that the members of an
orchestra should do more than express
an opinion, that might or might not
be followed up, was vigorously opposed
by the majority of the orchestra managers.
However, the most outspoken opposition
came from Peter Heyworth, music critic
of the Observer, who for a
number of years had conducted a campaign
against the London orchestras, mainly
because of the lack of contemporary
compositions in their programmes.
He told the Conference, ‘With
regard to musicians taking over the
decision-making process: some unflattering
remarks have been made about the London
orchestral scene, well justified,
I think, since it is one of the scandals
of the Western world and has been
for a number of years. It was brought
about by musicians taking over the
decision-making process’. Hans Landesmann,
the Artistic Director of the European
Community Youth Orchestra, and a member
of the select committee, pointed out
that though Mr Heyworth believed the
situation in London was so bad because
the orchestras were self-governed,
the Vienna Philharmonic had been self-governing
from when it was established (as had
the LSO) and had neither been managed
badly or done too badly.
As
the only one taking part in this discussion
with first-hand experience of playing
in both a managed and self-governed
orchestra, it was clear to me that
whether an orchestra should be self-governing
or not was usually beyond our control.
Social and economic circumstances
and a number of other factors affect
what decision has to be taken. In
the end the report from the select
committee was accepted unanimously
– though no conclusion had been reached.
Another
committee dealt with The Orchestra
as Workplace. This committee perceived
that ‘there are major problems which
make the orchestra a less than optimal
workplace for musicians and administrators,
resulting in interpersonal tension
and inefficiency of operation, a lack
of motivation and often of commitment
to the institution. In addition, even
when standards are high there is disaffection,
emotional stress and increased evidence
of illness associated with playing
in a symphony orchestra.’ They recommended
a pilot scheme to identify what has
an impact on morale and to what extent
it affects performance, to study work-related
medical problems, to look into possible
changes in the organisational structure
of the orchestra and methods of professional
development. In all they assessed
the cost would be about $400,000.
There
was not a great deal of enthusiasm
for attempting to raise what was at
that time a considerable amount of
money when orchestras were already
experiencing the financial restraints
referred to several times during the
conference. Naturally, there was support
for the idea that stress and medical
problems should be examined, though
Humphrey Burton, the BBC TV producer
of many performing arts programmes,
thought these recommendations were
a very American problem where bringing
in psychiatrists forms a part of everyday
life. Christopher Bishop, Managing
Director of the Philharmonia Orchestra
in London, said that because the orchestras
in London were self-governing and
ran their own lives these problems
did not apply. He thought that the
members of the orchestras and their
managers worked together in ‘an atmosphere
of unity and willingness to work together’.
The report of the Conference does
not record whether the recommendations
were agreed or not. However, it does
record that the Conference Director,
Peter Diamand, asked to be considered
to have voted against.
Now,
twenty years later re-reading the
book The Evolution of the Symphony
Orchestra: History, Problems and Agendas
(Weidenfeld and Nicolson), a verbatim
account of our discussions during
the conference, I see that in welcoming
us Isaac Stern remarked that our agenda
was ‘long and comprehensive’ and that
it would be ‘something of a task to
make order out of so many possibilities’.
It will probably not come as a surprise
to readers who have had any experience
of conferences of this kind that such
recommendations as were agreed have
not been implemented. However, I have
reported the proceedings rather fully
because this was a unique occasion,
the only time as far as I know when
so many performers, managers of orchestras
and a number of others with an interest
and influence in the world of the
symphony orchestra have met to discuss
its problems and future prospects.
The
Orchestra for Europe
My
wife and I returned to Britain on
the 2nd of January 1987,
just a fortnight before we set off
for Denmark and my visits to conservatoires
around the world which I have written
about in an earlier chapter.
When
during 1988 the BBC told us that their
own financial difficulties required
them to make cuts in their expenditure
and that they would not be able to
continue funding the National Centre
after the end of the !988/89 course,
I found that there were still a number
of musicians and music educators in
Britain and elsewhere who continued
to believe that students having completed
their studies at music college required
further preparation before joining
the orchestral profession. If we were
going to have another attempt to provide
orchestral preparation we should learn
from our experience. I was also keen
to see whether the ideas I had put
forward a few years previously, at
the ISME Conference in Innsbruck and
in Jerusalem, were practical and could
provide opportunities for composers
and performers that did not exist
in the inflexible symphony orchestra
structure.
It
had been clear to me for some time
that to try to form an orchestra (or
resource centre) each year, of the
standard that would make the exercise
valid, from young musicians in only
one country and a few months after
they leave their conservatoires and
universities, had been a flaw in the
NCOS plan from the start. Youth orchestras
were able to draw on the most gifted
from across five or six years and
any other orchestra could select from
thirty years or more. For ambitious
students who had already done a few
professional dates while still completing
their course the image of the NCOS
was unattractive. Why should they
remain at college for an extra year?
Later some of them did come to realise,
too late, that they still required
further preparation before entering
the orchestral profession.
At
the end of the section about the National
Centre for Orchestral Studies in chapter
22, when I was lamenting the demise
of the NCOS, I wrote that ‘In 1989
there was another attempt to create
‘preparation for the profession’ or,
as I have always preferred to call
it ‘a first year in the profession
in sheltered accommodation’. As soon
as we received the bad news from the
BBC I put the ideas I had expressed
in Innsbruck and at the Conference
in Jerusalem to the NCOS management
committee. They realised that in any
case the NCOS would have to be wound
up at the end of the next year’s course
and that my ideas gave the possibility
of continuing the kind of education
they had worked so hard to provide
for the past ten years. Goldsmiths’
College and the University of London
both agreed that I should go ahead
to see what might be possible.
Before
going any further I thought I should
approach the Wheatland Foundation,
which had suggested that it might
support projects specifically concerned
with the education of orchestral musicians
and assist politically or economically
any developments that might arise.
I wrote to tell them that since the
Conference the previous year I had
visited conservatoires around the
world and had meetings with directors,
managers and administrators, both
public and private. The problems everywhere
were similar to those we had discussed
in Jerusalem. Now we should obtain
some hard facts in regard to the economics,
structure, administration and the
education we should provide for those
wanting to become musicians then and
into the following century. I was
disappointed to receive a reply informing
me that the Wheatland Foundation did
not fund research projects. It now
administered a translation fund, which
gave grants to British and American
publishers to assist them in translating
works from a foreign language into
English.
In
the autumn of 1988, as the first term
of the final NCOS course was beginning,
I started the search for money and
a suitable venue for this new venture.
I was incredibly fortunate to meet
Tony Goodchild, who had just come
into a considerable bequest that allowed
him to retire from being the head
of a large school music department
and concentrate on his first love,
conducting amateur choirs. With his
customary generosity, he assisted
me in so many ways: paying for a number
of trips around the country in his
splendid new car, a very large and
incredibly powerful green Jaguar,
and on a few occasion the cost of
going overseas. Without his financial
help the NCOS would have had to draw
on its rapidly dwindling bank account.
He
also bought us a computer which in
1988 meant a very large piece of equipment
that required those using it to learn
a special language – this was quite
a while before Windows, click and
drag, the Internet, etc. had become
something that children of five and
six could operate with ease. The sight
of it sent my otherwise expert secretary,
who was a very fast typist and generally
extremely resourceful, into a flat
spin. Fortunately, a young lady we
also employed in the office who until
then had only undertaken very junior
tasks came to our rescue. Quite soon
she was managing this new technology
with which we were now able to prepare
the publicity material we needed for
our new venture, The Orchestra for
Europe (O for E).
After
looking at several places we at last
found what seemed could become the
perfect home for the new orchestra
– a beautiful redundant 18th
century church, St. Thomas in Bristol,
with a large hall attached. Both the
church and the hall were large enough
to accommodate a full symphony orchestra.
There was also space for our offices,
music library and to store the large
instruments, the timpani, percussion
and the double basses. For our purpose
Bristol in the south-west of England
would make an ideal base. It is one
of the very few cities in Britain
that has the characteristics of a
mainland European city of the same
size – about thirty-five to forty
thousand inhabitants. It has a fine
concert hall, the Colston Hall, where
I had played many times, several theatres,
including the lovely 18th
century Theatre Royal, an excellent
library and a University with a good
music department. There was a fast
and frequent one and a half hour train
service to London that would enable
members of the orchestra to attend
a wealth of concerts and if they wished,
arrange lessons with many of the finest
artists in Britain.
Bristol
had other advantages as a base for
a musical organisation as well as
its concert hall. It had no resident
orchestra of its own and there were
several other towns within a radius
of fifty miles where it could give
concerts: Bath, Gloucester, Cheltenham,
Swindon and Wells, all towns I had
played in with one orchestra or another.
The members of this music resource
centre could make a real contribution
to the cultural life of all these
towns and cities.
Throughout
1989 discussions with the church authorities,
the architects and our fund-raising
efforts went well enough for the NCOS
management committee and the Delegacy
of the University of London to start
taking the necessary steps to wind
up the Trust. In October three months
after the last concert by the NCOS
orchestra at the Barbican in London,
the NCOS Trustees and Management Committee
was disbanded. It had been agreed
that the money remaining in the NCOS
Trust account, the music library,
the musical instruments and the office
equipment should all pass to the new
Orchestra for Europe management structure
and Charitable Trust, with Lady Evelyn
Barbirolli OBE as Chair of the Management
Committee, which would take on responsibility
for the new orchestra. Lord Harewood
(The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Harewood,
KBE) agreed to be the orchestra’s
President, bringing his invaluable
experience gained at the Royal Opera
House, English National Opera and
the Philharmonia Orchestra; the Vice-Presidents
Sir Yehudi Menuhin OM, KBE, Sir John
Tooley, General Director of the Royal
Opera House and Richard Burke, with
his knowledge of the European Commission,
each brought their wide experience
of musical and political affairs.
Sir Charles Groves, CBE was Chairman,
International Council of Consultants
and Gennadi Rozhdestvensky, formerly
Principal Conductor of the BBC Symphony
Orchestra and the Bolshoi and then
Chief Conductor of the USSR Ministry
of Culture Orchestra was to be the
Artistic Adviser. I was appointed
as Artistic and Executive Director.
We
thought there would be enough money
in the new O for E Trust account for
us to have time to raise the funds
required for the new orchestral course,
this time for young musicians from
right across Europe, not only those
in Britain. If a number of countries
within the EC contributed to the funding
of the enterprise we believed we this
could achieve our goal.
Everything
seemed to be going well, but … I can
do no better than to quote from the
Bristol Evening Post of 1 November
1989:
The
much-vaunted plans to move a European
orchestra to Bristol (in 1990)
have been put back for a year –
a victim of Britain’s medieval church
laws. The Orchestra for Europe intended
to move into St. Thomas’ church, an
elegant 18th century building
near Bristol Bridge, in January. But
the change of use of a church is a
very complicated business. The city
planners have to agree – so do the
diocese, the Church Commissioners,
the Redundant Church Advisory Board
and the Privy Council. The St. Thomas’
scheme is likely to be approved by
the Privy Council, but only after
it has been advertised for a period
of up to Christmas. This means the
builders can’t get inside to start
the alterations necessary to house
a 90-strong orchestra of young musicians
from all over the continent. The delay
means that hundreds of applicants
for places for next year’s orchestra
have had to be turned away and their
money refunded.
In
the end the Privy Council did agree,
though first objections from the Georgian
Society to anything in the church
being changed had to be overcome.
There was also a campaign against
the hall adjoining the church being
used by the orchestra. It had for
some years been used as a night refuge
for the homeless and a rather fierce
correspondence against any change
of use (though other plans for the
homeless were being made) ran in the
local newspapers for several weeks.
With the help of the Church Authorities
we also overcame this problem.
As
well as approaches to companies and
individuals I went to Brussels to
speak to one of the EC committees,
the Comite Jeunesse of the European
Parliament, where I gained the impression
that if we were to be based anywhere
other than in England we might well
have received funds. Unfortunately,
at that time Mrs Thatcher had been
busy wielding her handbag and the
British were not very popular. Other
visits included Madrid and Istanbul,
where I attended the Conference of
the Association of European Conservatoire
and Academies and spoke to them about
O for E.
Though
we raised a good deal of money, 1990
was as bad a time as we could have
selected – the BBC was not the only
organisation to be making what Richard
Hoggart called ‘candle end’ savings.
Everyone was cutting back. The conductors
and soloists we needed to book for
the concerts we proposed to give in
Europe had to be booked well ahead,
at least one or two years ahead, often
longer. We could have started but
I was unwilling to risk having to
cancel concerts at a later date because
of lack of money or run into the kind
of debt so many arts organisations
have run up. At the beginning of 1991
I felt I had to advise the management
committee that we should call it a
day. Extremely reluctantly they did
so. The letters I received from artists,
conductors and those who had hoped
we could continue our work, are testimony
to how disappointed many musicians
and music-lovers were.
A
few months after we had left a tramp
managed to get into the church and
made a bed for himself on top of the
organ and then in the morning he went
on his way leaving behind him a smouldering
cigarette butt. The very fine organ
caught fire and was completely destroyed,
as was nearly everything else in the
church, leaving the whole of the roof
and all the walls covered in thick
black tar, the result of the smoke.
It would have cost us a fortune to
repair the whole building and in the
meantime we would have had nowhere
to work. So, as it turned out we were
saved from what would have been a
major financial disaster had we not
decided to call a halt when we did.
Chapter
24
Return
to previous page
