Return (Again) of the Rubin Institute

The Rubin Institute for Music Criticism is back at San Francisco Conservatory, in late October.

Dates: Thursday, October 25 to Monday, October 29, 2018
Location: San Francisco Conservatory of Music

The full schedule is here.

Who:

Writers Panel 
Members of the 2018 Rubin Institute Writers Panel represent some of the most respected journalists in the music industry: Gary Giddins, author of Bing Crosby: Swinging on a Star, The War Years 1940-1946 (Brown, Little, 2018); Joshua Kosman, San Francisco Chronicle critic;Anne Midgette, The Washington Post critic and author; Tim Page, professor, former Washington Post critic, and special contributor to Past / Forward: The LA Phil at 100 (Los Angeles Philharmonic, 2018); John Rockwell, writer, critic, and former editor of The New York Times Sunday Arts & Leisure section; Alex Ross, The New Yorker magazine critic and author; Stephen Rubin, Institute benefactor and president of Henry Holt & Co.; and Heidi Waleson, The Wall Street Journal critic and author of Mad Scenes and Exit Arias: The Death of the New York City Opera and the Future of Opera in America (Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, 2018). Members of the Writers Panel will present pre-concert lectures (tickets required) and a public panel discussion (free/no ticket required) over the course of the five-day symposium, offering the public the chance to hear firsthand from those at the forefront of music criticism.

Rubin Institute Fellows

Eighteen aspiring young writers from colleges, universities, and conservatories around the U.S. and abroad have been selected by the Writers Panel through an open application process, marking another first in the history of the Rubin Institute; previously, fellows were nominated by leadership at five partnering schools. The 2018 Rubin Institute Fellows are: Philip de Oliveira-Kent State University; Timothy Diovanni-Dublin Institute of Technology; Hannah Edgar-University of Chicago; Tamzin Elliott-University of Southern California; Peter Feher, John Masko, and Evan Pengra Sult-San Francisco Conservatory of Music; Jennifer Gersten-State University of New York at Stony Brook; Patrick Jankowski and Amanda Vosburgh-Yale University; Alice Koeninger, Rory O'Donoghue, and Parker Ramsay-Oberlin College and Conservatory; Jason McCool-Boston University; Grace Odell-University of Missouri-Kansas City; Madison Schindele-Goldsmiths, University of London; Brin Solomon-New York University; and Alexander Sutton-University of Virginia. Through the application process, these writers demonstrated an exceptional level of intellectual energy and an original approach to criticism, and, collectively, they represent an emerging vitality and renewal of spirit for the future of music journalism. 

A couple of personal notes:

• Enabling all interested participants to apply is a huge improvement over nominations from five "partner" colleges and universities.
• I'd suggest expanding that writers' panel by adding a freelancer and someone under 50, or someone on an "alternative" career path. One example: Tim Mangan, now on the staff of the Pacific Symphony. Or maybe Thomas May.
• Or even have a completely different panel each year, though I understand the advantages of consistency.
• The combo of the Rubin Institute and Getty Foundation is now funding five or so classical music critic positions at newspapers. This still isn't the solution to the problems facing the profession, though it's a partial solution for a few locations.
• The problem is still not a lack of people who can produce well-written and well-informed music criticism.
• I'm planning to attend a reasonable number of sessions this year!

Rubin Institute, but for General Journalism

Found on the Google blog The Keyword this morning: Supporting Local Journalism with Report for America. Here are the money grafs:

An initiative of The GroundTruth Project, Report for America is taking its inspiration from Teach for America and applying it to local journalism. Its goal is to attract service-minded candidates and place them in local newsrooms for a year as reporters.

The first pilot, which will start early next year, aims to fill 12 reporting positions in newsrooms across the country, in areas underserved by local media. There will also be a community element to the work—a reporter might also help a local high school start or improve their student-run news site or newspaper.

Okay, not exactly, but related, as Zoe Madonna starts her second year at the Boston Globe supported by outside foundations. And the same question applies: who will pay for these 12 reporters on an ongoing basis?

Rubin Institute for Music Criticism Public Panel - Thoughts for the Future

I left my copious notes from yesterday's public panel at work, so I can't give you a full report, but I have some ideas about making this panel even more worthwhile in future years.

1. Hold it at a time when the public is more likely to attend.

The panel was at 2 p.m. on a Friday; that is, for many potential audience members, it's a work day. Lots of people can't leave work at that time of day, period. Lots work too far from the San Francisco Conservatory of Music to get there at all without taking time off. Scheduling this during working hours on a weekday makes it accessible to students, people who aren't working (out of a job, retired), and people who can take the time off work to attend.

I understand that there are constraints on where and when this can be held. However, between the SFCM and the sponsoring organizations that are within blocks of the SFCM (SFO, SFS, SF Performances), maybe there's an appropriate space free during the day on a weekend or evening.

2. Coach the panel about speaking up.

I'm glad, very glad, that the panel wasn't amplified, but the panelists were not equally audible.

3. Post the questions that will be asked of the panelists in advance.

4. Find a way to enable people who aren't in the room to submit questions for the panel.

You could do this with a Facebook page, by setting up an email address at SFCM for questions, or by using various online programs that can take questions, allow comments, etc.

5. Find a way to get the panel on the radio or on line in real time.

San Francisco Opera has been webcasting some of its press events, including the event at which Matthew Shilvock was named General Director Designate. There is, or used to be, some way to use Google Hangouts for webcasting. Facebook has to have a livestreaming component. Twitter has Periscope.

6. Include at least one past student from the Rubin Institute.

7. Include a panelist who isn't working primarily for a nationally-known publication.

Return of the Rubin Institue

Remember the Rubin Institute for Music Criticism?

It's an organization dedicated to training the next generation of music critics, by giving a small number of music students the chance to work with top-flight music critics for a few days. I had quite a bit to say about the organization two years ago during their last session (yes, it's an alternate-years seminar). In brief, they're trying to solve the wrong problem: the major challenge facing classical music criticism isn't a lack of good critics, it's a lack of ways to make a living as a critic.

Anyway, the Rubin Institute is in town again, October 20-24, again at the SF Conservatory of Music. The cast of char...er, critics is similar to 2014:

• Joshua Kosman, SF Chron
• Anne Midgette, Washington Post
• Tim Page, USC
• John Rockwell
• Alex Ross
• Stephen Rubin
• Heidi Waleson, WSJ

No sign of Anthony Tommasini of the NY Times, Winn Delacoma, or Steven Winn; no idea why. The late Robert Commanday also participated in 2014, and all I can do is sigh over his absence.

You can read the institute schedule at the SFCM web site.: The public events include pre-concert talks by Anne Midgette (Philharmonia Baroque), John Rockwell (SFS), and Alex Ross (SFO, The Makropulos Case). In addition, there's a public panel at 2 p.m. on Friday and a presentation of prizes at 10:30 a.m. on Monday. This seems significantly reduced from 2014.

Joshua Kosman Tells You What It's Like

To be a music critic, that is.

Goings-On at the Rubin Institute Panels and Talks

Over at LiveJournal, frequent commenter Kalimac has been writing up the public events of the Rubin Institute for [Classical] Music Criticism. The postings that are up are here:

• Wednesday keynote, Anthony Tomassini, NY Times
• Thursday panel, Introduction to Classical Music Criticism (Tim Page, Anne Midgette, Alex Ross, John Rockwell, Heidi Waleson, Stephen Rubin)

Big thanks to Alex Ross for the shout-out, which has now been reported directly to me by two friends, in addition to Kalimac's mention. From the time stamp, I think one of them sent email about three seconds after Alex finished talking. I wish I could have been there, and also at Tommasini's talk, but after missing more or less seven weeks of work while on sick and family leave, there was just no way I'd be attending events at 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. in San Francisco. I do plan to come to tomorrow's firing squ...er, "Master Class in Classical Music Criticism."

I think for every critic who wanders into music criticism from another field, there is at least one with a music degree. In high school, I thought I would grow up to be a full-time critic. Robert Commanday was a flutist and chorus director before he became a music writer. Joshua Kosman has undergraduate and graduate degrees in music. Anthony Tommasini was a pianist and piano teacher, and I believe so was Bernard Holland before him. Alex Ross may not have majored in music, but it's clear that he took music classes in college. It is important to have technical knowledge of music if you're going to write about it, but you don't have to be a music major to acquire that knowledge.

As far as Gil French's question goes, okay, maybe they're not training writers for jobs that don't exist. There is still a shortage of outlets that pay, not to mention paying well, for classical music criticism and journalism. I am a very, very part-time writer, and I have never made more than $3,000/year for my music writing. I told Andy Doe earlier this year that I thought that with some effort I could probably make $25,000 - $30,000/year working half- to full-time. That would be fine as additional income after I stop working full time, but I am a technical writer and get paid more than that.

I am not sure what to say just now about Anthony Tommasini's keynote other than to mention that if you heard a loud noise last night, it was me banging my head against the wall as I read Kalimac's write-up.

Part of the Answer, At Least

Here's Alex Ross talking to Gabe Meline at KQED about classical music criticism, the job, in connection with the Rubin Institute.

And a Twitter exchange with Anne Midgette:

 

(That should be Joshua Rifkin, of course.)

And Why We Write Daily Reviews

My previous posting doesn't get into the specific reasons for writing performance reviews, but they exist and they are important to musical life:

• To keep the audience informed about what's going on
• To create a historical record of who was doing what when and how well they did it

Commentary is a basic part of cultural life, as it is of political and scientific life.

Why We Write About the Arts

So I'm getting some comments and quotations, and (I think) not just from the Pelleastrian and his other pseudonyms, claiming that criticism is worthless, and criticizing or writing about or analyzing music is worthless. (Or something like that.) All you have to do is listen to it!

First, I'll repeat what I asked earlier: if you believe that, why are you reading this blog? Why are you bothering to comment on my words about music or criticism?

Second, I'll ask everyone to consider the anti-intellectualism that's inherent in these claims, where analyzing and thinking about a work of art, whether an opera or a painting or a poem, are dismissed as unimportant.

I am not in any way trying to downplay the experience of seeing an opera, listening to a string quartet, or finding yourself in the same room as, say, the Portinari Triptych. But if these works of art don't inspire some curiosity or interest in learning more about them, you have missed something important in the experience. I mean, there are good reasons that there are libraries full of musical analysis and history, art history, and literary criticism. Yes, reading that stuff does enhance my experience of the works themselves, and the experience of millions of other people. If that's not true of you, fine; don't read about or discuss your favorite works of art. But don't denigrate the enterprise of intellectual attempts to understand these works, either.

What Problem is the Rubin Institute Trying to Solve?

In a comment to my previous, informational, posting about the Rubin Institute, someone has asked what exactly the Rubin Institute is preparing people for. That is the question, isn't it? And it's one I was planning to get to. 

As you can see from the press release, the Rubin Institute exists to train college students to be classical music critics: 

The first program of its kind focusing on music and music criticism, the Rubin Institutebrings together before the public national music journalists, renowned musicians, and aspiring young writers, combining the wisdom and insight of today's highly esteemed critics, the artistry and daring of acclaimed musicians, and the energy and promise of tomorrow's music journalists. The biennial institute comprises a week-long series of public events including a keynote address, performances, lectures by critics, critical reviews, and discussion panels. 

Featuring public concerts by acclaimed musicians from the opera, chamber, and orchestral stages, the performances are reviewed by a select group of student writers (Rubin InstituteFellows). Their work is critiqued in private workshops and public sessions by a panel of highly esteemed national music critics and journalists. Leading up to the Institute, the twenty student writers will work with a preparatory team at each of their nominating universities.

Says David Stull, the president of the SFCM:

This program dramatically enhances the discourse and awareness of classical music and will provide an extraordinary opportunity to aspiring music critics to engage with the great musical artists and writers of our time. I am deeply grateful to Stephen Rubinfor his vision and continued support of this program."

So I have to admit, this left me scratching my head. To start with, I see the value of spending a few days getting feedback from a bunch of top-notch writers, but even intensive tutoring isn't going to give you the knowledge and skills you need to be a good classical music reviewer:

• Technical knowledge of music itself 
• Knowledge of the history of performance, performers, and repertory
• Knowledge of musical styles (the ability to tell a Russian sound from an Italian sound, for example)
• A discerning ear
• Good taste
• The ability to write well

At least in theory, these are the skills and knowledge you get by studying music over a long period of time, in classes, in music lessons on your instruments of choice, by listening to a whole lot of music, in person and on record, and by getting a lot of feedback on your writing skills. Honestly, it takes years to develop some of these skills; music majors generally get several years of classes in ear-training and music theory & analysis. A discerning ear, the ability to tell a good performance from a bad one - well, a lot goes into that.

The 20 Rubin Fellows should have a decent grounding in most of the above skills; they are all music students at UC Berkeley, Oberlin, SFCM, Stanford, or Yale.

Now, you might think, from reading the press releases, that there's a shortage of good classical music reviewers and critics. This is simply not the case, as you can tell from reading those big city papers that still have classic critics on staff, or from reading San Francisco Classical Voice, Classical Voice North America, or Chicago Classical Review. Or from reading some of the hundreds of blogs that cover the classical scene. 

No, the real crisis, the real problem for classical music criticism today, is that there just aren't very many outlets that will pay you to write about classical music. Newspapers have been consolidating and closing left and right over the last 20 years. Most newspapers don't have even one full-time classical music critic on staff. In the state of California, 50 million people are served by four full-time newspaper critics (Joshua Kosman, Chron; Richard Scheinin, Mercury News; Tim Mangan, OC/LA Register; and Mark Swed, LA Times), with part-timers such as me and the other SFCV writers making up the difference by covering, with varying degrees of interest and skill, the hundreds of performances that take place in this state.

So I am both sympathetic to the aims of the Rubin Institute and exasperated by the particular problem it's solving. We have plenty of critics and potential critics. What we really need is more ways to make a living writing about music. 

A few notes that I can't squeeze into the above:

• The Rubin Institute doesn't seem to take into account liner notes and program notes. Program notes are closely related to criticism, but give the writer more space and the opportunity to write about music rather than a particular performance, which is, after all, just one performance. 
• Over at Renewable Music, Daniel Wolf makes some brilliant and important points about accidental critics and the problems with overcredentialing criticism.
• Kalimac also discusses the Rubin Institute.

Rubin Institute for Music Criticism

The San Francisco Conservatory of Music is hosting the Rubin Institute for Music Criticism November 5-10, with a host of events at various places. I have some thoughts, which I'll try to get into a separate posting, but there's a press release below the cut. I also received a press release about the Rubin Fellows, a talented group of most-double-majors from four colleges and universities. (That in itself is interesting: does this mean it's tough luck if you go to Brandeis or Reed?)