Late Thursday night a committee of musicians from the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra released a statement in support of the RPO Board in light of recent developments. The full statement appears below.
In light of
recent developments, the musicians of the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra
would like to stress our commitment to bringing the highest level of classical,
pops, and educational music performances to audiences in Rochester and beyond.
Our vision of creative and innovative programming and artistic excellence
remains unchanged. We are proud of our history, which has inspired and
delighted audiences for 90 years, and we continue to be optimistic about our
future. The musicians of the RPO stand in support of our Board of Directors and
Administrative Staff as we move forward together. We are deeply grateful for
your patronage, and thank you for continuing to be faithful supporters of the
orchestra. The musicians of the RPO continue to be “Your RPO.”
Respectfully,
The Rochester
Philharmonic Orchestra Committee
Charles Bailey
Andrew Brown
Jennifer Burch
Benjamin Krug
Craig Sutherland
Related Stories
ARTS: Remmereit, supporters address controversial RPO decision
This article appears in Dec 12-18, 2012.
I’m glad to see the musicians and board sticking together as a team. The orchestra is so much more than any one person. In fact it is mostly the musicians. Besides, I heard that attendance is way up since the recent decision!
ALL the RPO musicians do not support the board decision. And seat sales are always up at Holiday time- there are many holiday-oriented concerts that attract families and others who, unfortunately do not attend year ’round.
There has not been one concert since the board’s announcement of their intentions for which Arild Remmereeit was scheduled to conduct at home. He is not scheduled to conduct the RPO again until January, 2013. Some believe that is why the board took the action it did, when it did.
For a different perspective, please see the comments attached to the “Reinstate Remmereit” petition, which now has over 1,000 signatures, and hundreds of favorable comments: http://tinyurl.com/petition-RPO
This “committee” only represents the five named individuals. The title of the article is also inaccurate –“Several RPO musicians release statement” would be accurate. And one thing is very clear, audience members were not considered in any way, shape or form in the abrupt and seemingly groundless termination of Remmereit — and that termination is being challenged on several different fronts.
Think of it this way, 99.9% of people don’t give a crap about this.
JoeZ: The statement above does not represent all the RPO musicians. Liane Curtis is quite correct about a more accurate headline.
Re: Attendance at RPO concerts – Please see my remark above. – * Seat sales are always up at Holiday time- there are many holiday-oriented concerts that attract families and others who, unfortunately do not attend year ’round.
For the finest performances, the ‘team’ needs to be the conductor and the orchestra members. The board of directors is not on stage….
This statement is not a statement of just five musicians of the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra. The RPO Orchestra Committee is a five member committee of musicians elected by the full orchestra. At a musician meeting this past Tuesday, discussion was had regarding a suggestion of crafting a statement from the musicians of the RPO to the public. The message and sentiment of the statement was discussed at length. A motion was made for the Orchestra Committee to write and distribute a statement inclusive of that message and sentiment. The motion passed with an overwhelming majority vote. Our statement was released Thursday evening.
Craig Sutherland
RPO Orchestra Committee Chair
I believe you are all missing the purpose of the statement. The orchestra is committed to moving forward in a positive manner with or without Mr. Remmereit. The institution is bigger than any one person.
RE: firefly12 – I wish the statement DID say that “the orchestra is committed to moving forward in a positive manner WITH or without Mr. Remmereit.” Unfortunately, it states “The musicians of the RPO stand in support of our Board of Directors and Administrative Staff as we move forward together.”
In this continuing saga, ‘forward’ has become code for ‘without Mr. Remmereit.’ And the remaining members of the Board and management have made it clear in several press releases, interviews, and on the RPO’s face book page that their idea is to move on without Mr. Remmereit.
Craig Sutherland, you well know that what you wrote DOES NOT represent the wishes of ALL RPO musicians, but just some that attended your meeting. Was the entire orchestra polled before you released such an important and one-sided statement?
Aren’t you the same musicians who wanted Arild Remmereit hired?
Mr. Sutherland, thank you so much for clarifying that. How was the voting on the motion carried out? I.e., show of hands or secret ballot? How many musicians were there and what were the numbers of the “overwhelming majority vote”? Sincerely, Liane Curtis
The Remmereit cultists claim that many RPO musicians oppose the termination of Arlid but fear managerial retribution if they speak out.
It would be interesting if a member of the cult would explain how to differentiate between those RPO musicians 1) who support the termination of Arlid’s contract but don’ t want to say so publicly, 2) those who oppose the termination but are supposedly fear managerial retribution, and 2) those who simply don’t care . To we of the unwashed masses all three groups look the same.
My personal opinion is , as they say in Law School 101, ” Qui tacet consentit”.