Posted by Rick Denney on May 05, 2003 at 18:16:35:
In Reply to: Re: Saving orchestras posted by Barry Guerrero on May 05, 2003 at 15:50:22:
I think the point of the music director living locally is an observation, not a rule. By observation, local music directors are associated with successful orchestras. But if it is an observation, then why might it be that way? There may be reasons that have nothing to do with the local residence of the music director, such as the community supporting the orchestra sufficiently so the music director has to live locally to keep up with all the activities. If so, then it is a circular argument.
But it may also be that a music director who lives locally will identify himself with the place and become truly committed to it in ways an itinerate music director might not. He will spend time with the patrons, and learn their sensibilities and desires. That will give him a better basis for pleasing them (and for stretching their horizons).
I grew up in Houston. Houston had a succession of import conductors back in the 60's--all of them big names. But was Andre Previn really committed to the Houston Symphony? I rather suspect it was just a gig for him. He performed stuff that was just too hip for the room, and was eventually ousted. Would he have remained so insensitive to the level of sophistication in the audience, and would he have been more careful about leading them to greater levels, had he lived there? It seems likely to me.
Houston has ended up with a remarkably sophisticated listening audience, compared to the stereotype, considering that works like Glass's Akhenaten were commissioned and premiered there. Previn no doubt deserves some credit for that, but he might have gotten his result sooner had he been more sensitive in directing that movement.
Rick "who likes the idea of local music directors being committed to the community" Denney