Perf Improvement LO14668

Ray Evans Harrell (mcore@IDT.NET)
Wed, 13 Aug 1997 00:03:24 -0700

Replying to LO14640 --

JAMES_H_CARRINGTON wrote:
(snip)
>Therefore, you and I are on the same page

Great! I suspected that but I needed to poke.

>It is after this point where we diverge. You ask:

>>When you need real authority to complete the job, is it not
>>self-defeating to get involved in an evaluative power struggle?

>Only in a situation where there is a personal(ity) conflict between
>the two individuals. I'm sure that you have had "creative differences"
>with some of your artists that have resulted in an open chair(be it
>voluntary or not).

Of course. The issue for me has to do with 1) the supremacy of dedication
to the product and 2) the immediacy of holistic feedback that does not
involve outside rehearsal dialogue.

>It comes down to this; the boss has the last
>word, and the employee must accept that. This is an issue of respect.

This is delicate in our world. If the conductor gives too much authority
to the individual he is usually demeaned, if on the other hand he does not
respect the individual's skill, he is ignored. Abused relationships often
cause great difficulty for those who follow the abuser, in my profession.

>If the employee cannot accept this relationship then it is up to the
>employee to change the situation by either leaving the organization or
>taking the problem to a higher authority.

This is what the Berlin Philharmonic did when they fired their Maestro but
out of dedication to the same quality ideals that he had adhered to
throughout his career.

(snip)
>But I maintain that ANY member of ANY organization must be
>trained, coached, molded, whatever to fully realize their potential
>with that organization.

In music, as you know, coaching and teaching are two different modalities.
Teaching is developmental and involves the whole individual's committment
to mastery. Coaching, on the other hand is more short term and does not
involve the whole so much as the simple achievement of the product whether
holistically mastered or not.

Teaching can only be asked for by the student and is individually
achieved, even in groups. The conductor and assistants mold a product
with the individual skill sets but they do not intrude upon the skill sets
themselves. It was the molding of the individual as a way of getting
the product that I had trouble with. Maybe I mis-read you on that one.

> you write:
>>The company's coaches prepare the individual for the particular
>>demands of that ensemble(very high level fine tuning).... But the
>>personal basic work is individual and the individual hires their
>>trainer.
>
>This is not coaching-training-molding ?

I believe that the language is the problem here. Yes it is coaching, no
it is not in-depth personal molding but only product molding. In depth
molding is, in this model, teaching and is prior to rehearsal and out of
the realm of the company. In fact it represents a placing of the
individual artist in an infantile position that will cause great trouble
within the company itself if it seems to be that. It is considered a
professional insult and can cause problems with the Musicians Union as
well.

>Speaking as a classically trained musician, I can say with experience
>that it NEVER comes out right the first time. That's why we have
>*rehearsals*. The conductor does not mold the ensemble as a whole.

I suspected you were. The conductor molds the product, they all mold the
ensemble together as a unit.

>"OBOES - not quite so legato on that arpeggio in the fourth measure, I
>want the bassoon's obligation on the off beat to be more prominent"

He is responsible for the way in which the product fits together. They
give up any individuality to him on that issue because he is responsible
for the way the product integrates with itself. Per-form-ance is as you
know, to "make the form clear" to the audience. In order for that to
happen he stands at the front above the ensemble and listens while
providing the rhythmic impetice for the group.

There are groups, however, like the Orpheus Orchestra who have dispensed
with him altogether. They have a high degree of integration that could
make one question the need for the conductor at all. When this changes is
with a great artist who can meet such dedication with superior intellect
and a great product is the result. I suspect, however, that many
orchestras would be required to have a higher degree of responsibility and
integration if they spent less rehearsal time with the conductor.

>This is not coaching-training-molding ?

Yes, and much more.

>Do you want to be operated on by a surgeon who has not been to a
>seminar on new techniques in ten years?

The seminar would come under the model of individual learning external to
the product. Serious skill is developed from committment. I believe that
it should be encouraged by the company and may even be paid for by the
company. However, it must come from the committment of the individual to
the highest of skill development. I believe this was what you were saying
earlier, yes?

>I can also say with experience that an electronics engineer that does
>not keep up with new technologies and practices should think about
>retiring.

I agree

>Even in your organization, where you get to select the conductor, do
>you chose an individual that simply waves the wand in time to the
>music? Or do you select someone who will work with the group and the
>individuals to bring out the best performance in each?

Within the product, that is the skill of the conductor.

>This is not coaching-training-molding ?

It has coaching in it, i.e. interpretation, and even training in the sense
that we all are always learning but the molding is limited to the product
itself. Composers on the other hand are another breed completely. They
are stretching the limits of performance skill and that involves a great
deal of molding and often is distructive until it is integrated into the
culture. A great many performers have been sacrificed on the altar of
compositional exploration.

>In your organization, the feedback loop is immediate and continuous.

In rehearsal, but I thought you were referring to verbal, external to the
product, feedback. Did I read that wrong?

>So how can you say that it is nonproductive, merely for the benefit of
>a warm and fuzzy?

Again, external to the product development. Testing is different from
rehearsal. It involves a different intent. In pedagogy we used to say
that "testing was not teaching." We might say that a rehearsal is
development of the product, testing is for the proof of skill. Rehearsal
certainly proves skill but that is not its intent. The product is the
intent.

>Is it not productive when the conductor tells the
>percussionist to back off on the tympani roll to help bring out the
>lower register glissando of the third flute? What happens then when
>the percussionist disagrees?

He has an unartistic intent. I would recommend that he listen or would
not hire him again or would suggest that he explore the issues with his
external teacher or therapist. Of course I agree that authority cannot be
breached in rehearsal but in free lance situations (AGILE Virtual
Ensembles) you often have many external scripts running around the
rehearsal hall. With these types of situations, I just make sure that I
have enough time to let them discover how silly they are. I make ample
use of technology, recordings etc. as feedback but some free lance pros
are so cynical that they simply don't want to be bothered. The only thing
you can do is hire other people and complain to the Union. This is an
abused ruined artistic talent.

>You may not have a regular performance
>review and feed back schedule, but you do have performance reviews,
>(as informal as they may be) your audience approval not withstanding.

yes,

>Your ultimate review will come in the form of box office receipts and
>donations.

I believe I said that in my last paragraph of the previous post..

>If people don't like your product, be it the content or
>performance, your organization will dive deeper and deeper into the
>red, until the board of directors (or trustees) demand a change.

That is a different discussion. The issue of audience dedication and
support is much more complicated than the simple like or dislike. It is
a constantly changing picture that is difficult for immature performing
personalities but happy in its variety for mature artists.

>That
>will be a review of the management of your organization as a whole.

My companies have always run in the black but the BOD is another matter
completely. I am not convinced that it is efficient in the development of
quality but I have been lucky with my BODs. They have generally been
supportive of our mission and occasionally fundraise. What more could you
want?

>In the arts, quality and quantity are highly subjective, less tangible
>aspects of the organization than in the manufacturing industries where
>quality and quantity are directly measured as major aspects of an
>employees performance.

I don't agree that they are less tangible. Good work is just as obvious
in the Arts as anywhere. The issue of creative success is, however,
subject to the flow of history and that is a problem. We are more
concerned with the perfection of the product than the private sector and
we are less able to control the dispersal of our product to the society at
large. This puts us in the economic area of "Public Goods" which is a
huge hole in the modern theory of economics. That is why we are all
fighting about public support of the arts IMHO.

Thanks for a good thought session.

Ray Evans Harrell

-- 

Ray Evans Harrell <mcore@IDT.NET>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>