I’ve been really, really pleased with the Rochester
Philharmonic’s concerts since Arild Remmereit became music director. The
orchestra has performed beautifully, and I’ve enjoyed and appreciated the new-to-Rochester
music that Remmereit has introduced.
I’ve been impressed with his injection of poetry readings
into the concerts. From what I hear, he has done wonderful community outreach.
And I wish this could have worked out differently.
But I’m not joining the “Save Arild” movement. Based on what
I’ve been able to learn from both sides, I think the RPO board did the only
thing it could do: voted to terminate his contract.
Few of us know the full story; I certainly do not. This is a
sensitive personnel issue, and anyone who has been involved in management knows
that out of respect to everyone involved, you don’t make the details public.
The people who do know the full story are the members of the RPO’s board and
honorary board. And as is the case in many conflicts, board members with the
same first-hand knowledge have reached different conclusions.
I’ve heard passionate discussions from people on both sides –
all of whom, I believe, are trying to do what’s best for an orchestra they
love. Here’s what I’ve concluded, though, from what I do know:
1) The problem is more than just a “personality problem”
between Remmereit and the RPO’s CEO, Charlie Owens, though at first that may
have seemed to be the case. That wouldn’t be surprising. The music director is
in charge of the music; the CEO is in charge of the budget. If both are strong
people doing their job, there’s an innate tension between the two, the music
director wanting more music (more rehearsals, for instance; more musicians) and
the CEO charged with balancing the books (even during a recession; even in a
town in which a major donor, Kodak, is in bankruptcy).
But according to a board statement released on Saturday, the
problems were widespread – tension between Remmereit “and members of the RPO
staff, board, and orchestra.” The RPO’s management isn’t perfect. I’ve heard
from several formerly substantial donors who are upset about their own
treatment and about development efforts. But there were no reports of
organization-wide problems prior to Remmereit’s arrival.
2) The board has tried, for more than a year, to set things
right. Initially, board leaders tried to remedy the situation themselves. But,
they say, the problem grew worse, and the board brought in a consultant to
identify what was causing it.
The consultant advised the board on ways to “heal” the
organization, to use board president Betsy Rice’s words. The board laid out
expectations for Remmereit for improvement. That was in June. Now, five months
later, board leaders say, the problems remain. And the board majority is
convinced that the situation is irreparable.
The majority board members have taken a lot of heat for their
decision, so it’s important to note that they didn’t just throw up their hands
in exasperation. They sought input from RPO musicians – and from the RPO’s Pops
conductor, Jeff Tyzik, and its education and outreach conductor, Michael
Butterman, and from conductor-laureate Christopher Seaman.
Tyzik has issued a statement expressing support for the board. So has one of the orchestra’s top benefactors,
the Elaine P. and Richard U. Wilson Foundation, calling the decision to
terminate Remmereit “difficult” but “necessary.” Foundation chair Deborah
Wilson is also an RPO board member.
Clearly, Remmereit has a strong
following. And maybe, in the end, we’ll learn that his supporters were right.
But many of those supporters seem to have heard only one side of this conflict.
I’ve heard two sides, and I believe the board did the right thing.
Sadly, at the moment, the conflict is hurting no one more than
the musicians themselves. While individual conductors can do great things with
an orchestra – can bring out strengths and lead it to new musical heights – it
is the musicians, not the conductor, who are the most important.
This article appears in Nov 28 – Dec 4, 2012.
Ms. Towler – My advice to the Remmereit cultists is the same as the apocryphal suggestion to those who wept over the ending of the recent Titanic movie, namely, “The boat sank. Get over it !’.
I’d note that you left out the fact that the RPO’s statement made it clear that the imbroglio between Arild and Charlie had reached the point where,… ” The board developed a protocol for monitoring his progress, provided Mr. Remmereit with a clear means for communicating with the board, and assigned him an adviser to help ensure success.”. In other words he was assigned a babysitter.
And while the Elaine P. and Richard U. Wilson Foundation has expressed support for the board it has been reported that other contributors, such as Betty Strasenburgh (who has apparently canceled her pledge of $100,000 for the RPO’s 2014 Carnegie Hall engagement because Remmereit won’t be around to conduct it) are risking the future of the RPO by advocating the withholding of support from the RPO because of the Board’s decision.
It’s going to be very difficult for Rochester to put this matter behind us. And it;’ not going to be made any easier by those who for their own reasons want to treat a generic HR decision as a conspiracy by reactionary community forces hell-bent on dragging down the RPO for god-only-knows what reason.
There is, implicitly, the appearance of a significant asymmetry in the Board’s decision to conduct a second survey of the orchestra about
Remmereit, but make no (publicly known) effort to inquire about Owens’ own performance during the transition from Seaman through Remmereit.
A high level of contention exists between the two, evidently.
This led to coaches being assigned to both (a fact not mentioned in Rice’s public letter, nor commented upon in Towler’s oped), and continual reports of
friction/dysfunction between them. But through this all, the Board apparently made no effort to solicit opinions about the approval/disapproval level of the CEO’s own performance from a period prior to the new appointment in 2011 to the present from within the RPO community. Their focus was solely upon Remmereit’s performance. Why is it not plausible to have also suspected there might be lurking difficulties with Owens’ own performance?
This asymmetry is disturbing and reveals a Board more focused upon administrative/managerial priorities than artistic ones.
The impression is that the Board is saying that we – the Board- believe that the CEO ought to be the CEO and that Remmereit should have just shut up and conducted.
But do the musicians actually agree with this perspective?
The board has summarized very briefly a second “survey” taken of the orchestra with about 2/3 responding. But they have given no information justifying their interpretation of the survey’s “negative” conclusions, nor even sought to clarify how opinions could have changed from a “positive” one in August, a mere three months earlier than the second survey.
It would also be useful to understand the context in which the musicians were asked to respond to the second survey. Were they informed that the purpose of the survey was
to help justify (to the public) termination of Remmereit’s contract?
It seems very unlikely that musicians would view “negatively” (whatever that might mean) a conductor who has consistently directed them in concerts that have been very well received by audiences, and in which they have performed at very high
levels of distinction.
In addition, how serious can such “negative” responses actually have been if the overwhelming percentage of the public feels that the performances have been of a very high standard, and have responded very enthusiastically???
There are surely protocols and well established procedures to follow, as well, to lessen friction and increase communication effectiveness between conductor
and orchestra that are, of course, far short of contract termination. There is no evidence
presented that the board tried to implement them. As a result, the weaving into
the post termination pr campaign of this second survey’s “results” gives the impression of a manipulation, a mere pretext for a decision that had already been made. It is very surprising that Towler’s oped completely neglects this, not even thinking to
raise this as a challenge, and concluding with the sentiment of “nothing (else) could be done”.
Rice’s letter blandly asserts that this tragedy will not lead to significant difficulties for the RPO. Faced with a large deficit, apparently, this assertion is laughably naive. You can’t possibly hope for stability and artistic success given the present disaster of a termination in the middle of the concert year. Towler’s own tone appears disconnected from the terrible reality now confronting the orchestra. The budget deficit, the level of discontent within the organization’s upper echelon towards its music director, combined with the shock and sorrow from outside (not to mention the musicians), are not appealing features to attract any future candidate for music director.
This will unfortunately lead to exceedingly difficult times ahead for the orchestra. Wiser heads will clearly be needed to extract the RPO from the current morass. I hope they are
forthcoming and sufficiently assertive.
Mary Anna – I am so disappointed with your Urban Journal: Let Remmereit go.
You are much too smart and have covered Rochester too long to be bamboozled. Please check this link for a look at what is happening in the orchestra world – management is not benign, boards are hand-picked, and musicians with weak unions are railroaded. It is NOT always about the music, or making nice.
The article is on ‘Slipped Disc’, an international classical music blog.
http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/201…
Just in: Minnesota stares into big, black, deepening holes
http://www.artsjournal.com
The two orchestras of the Twin Cities, both of which have thrown their players o…See More
It was the right decision. Period. It’s easy for folks to liken the situation here to Minnesota, Atlanta, Chicago, and other orchestras around the country. But the fact of the matter is, this situation couldn’t be more different. This is not about management putting the kabbash on great art. Ticket sales were down, musicians and staff were hurting, and some musicians have even expressed online that they did not enjoy Remmereit’s programming – it didn’t challenge them and it wasn’t enjoyable to play. The orchestra is about the musicians, and Remmereit’s army seems to have no regard for that.
Remmereit and Owens could have worked out individual differences. However, the RPO’s statement makes it clear that Remmereit caused tensions with people across the organization. This includes musicians and staff members–the piss poor folks who are being paid absolutely nothing yet have still devoted their lives to the RPO. If the decision truly took years to make, it’s clear that the wounds were deep and not fixable. It’s time to move on.
Ms Tower,
In your opinion you assert, “there were no reports of organization-wide problems prior to Remmereit’s arrival.” I don’t think this is neither an objective assessment of the situation nor a reflection of the mission of the search committee.
The RPO audience is ageing and predominantly white. The audience is drawn from the suburbs and the programming has been in the past very Euro-centric. There were comments in the community about the competence of the staffing. Hugh number of hours were expended in Show House fundraising efforts then abandoned – why? A wise Music Director might have just keep his mind off all the “noise” in the “back office.”
I believe the search committee was looking for a change and over promised and over stated the need or willingness to change. Misled, Areal tried to produce what was expected then found him self cut off at the knees by the anxious staff and board. With leadership so conditioned to the culture of Kodak and Xerox, dinosaurs of another age, its no wonder that the savior was crucified for leading to passionately.
But the damage is now done. The consequences will follow. Those who are discouraged and disappointed with the Board will turn to other institutions for their musical needs.
Here we are with a dying audience while another un-addressed audience is growing and has the cultural depth and cohesion to embrace an art form like the RPO could be, yet rigidity and clinging to the past may end in the slow demise of our Symphony.
Last week I was at in Carnegie Hall to see my Grand Daughter “dance” in a fundraiser. As I waited in the ticket line I was amused to see Gustavo Dudamel and Simón Bolívar Symphony Orchestra of Venezuela. Here they were scheduled for Sunday thru Wednesday schedule – not days we could fill Kodak Hall to 50%. What does NYC know that Rochester has yet to figure out? We shall see when the new search committee reports out.
Bill Thistle –
You ask, “What does NYC know that Rochester has yet to figure out?”
The answer is that NYC knows that it has a municipal population of over EIGHT MILLION to draw from, as well as a Metropolitan Statistical Area population of NINETEEN MILLION.
On the other hand Rochester is still trying to figure ow how to make due with a city population that has shrunk from 296,000 in 1970 to 211,000 today, and an MSA of just over 1,000,000, or about 75% of the population of just the Bronx.
Next question?
OK, call me naive. But this sure smells like something that has happened before. I think this must be viewed from a broader perspective—that of the community and not just the RPO. When Maestro Remmereit first came here, I thought the adulation he received was over the top. But that changed when I attended his performance of Mahler’s Second Symphony. I was awed by the performance, the finest Mahler interpretation I had ever heard (including the New York Philharmonic). Everything I have seen and heard about this conductor suggests that he is EXACTLY what the RPO needs to elevate it to a new era of significance. That he, of all people, be asked to leave seems beyond absurd. Rochester has a rich history of shooting itself in the foot. Is this yet another example of petty infighting among a few power players being allowed to destroy something of value to our entire community? This has happened so many times in the past that it’s difficult to assume otherwise.
I would like to take issue with some of the assertions made in your opinion piece “let Arild go”. There were many problems and significant staff turn over prior to Arild’s arrival. The consultant hired by the RPO in fact held all three parties responsible: the Music Director, the CEO, and the Board of Directors. There were specific recommendations for each of these players. Ms Rice in her statement implies that only the Music Director was asked to adress issues, and that he has failed and hence he is being fired. That is patently untrue.
I know this because I was on the board of the RPO, and resigned in Octoberin protest regarding the manner in which the board meetings and activities were being conducted..
Since last week I’ve been ruminating over this mess…it does seem, in light of the D-C article today (assuming it gives a fair summary), that the earlier letter from Rice to the community was not at all the complete picture. It gave a misleading presentation of what the recommendations were by the labor law firm, and did not give any evidence that the board had inquired seriously about the role played by Owens in the dysfunction that was their responsibility, first to understand clearly and then do something constructive about. Instead they decided to heap all the blame upon Remmereit, and even presented a misleading interpretation of a second survey of the orchestra as a significant factor
in their termination decision.
This is contemptible, not to mention inept, behavior. It tells all of us in the community who prize the orchestra that the board has dismally failed all of us in its principal role as guardian of the health and well being of the RPO. In particular, they did not pursue due diligence in honestly and rigorously clarifying the role played by Owens, both prior to and after the Remmereit appointment, in the various indications that something was amiss. Today’s article also tells us that this opinion is shared by very distinguished people who have first hand knowledge of the situation, having participated in the board’s deliberations. This is therefore not merely a rant by an outraged (and still stunned) member of the public.
The question is what can be done now. People with influence and standing must
come forward with vigor and imagination in an organized and coherent manner to insure that the egregious behavior of the board is not the last word. All effort must be made to
insure that the formula for next year, as articulated by Rice, be shortcircuited as quickly as possible. Stringing together a complete year of guest conductors, all hastily arranged at this late date, will neither help grow audience nor insure us of performances worthy of the orchestra. Moreover, the backlash produced by this termination announcement will
surely come back next year to haunt the orchestra at the box office and in orchestra morale.
Not to proceed with a plan better than the one the board appears intent upon pursuing
is not in the best interests of the RPO. The sooner people with influence realize this and can help push through, the more quickly the better solution can be found. It is completely obvious and something that perhaps now Mary Towler can get behind and promote in her publication.
I too was disappointed by your article (labeled: **news** and opinion ) supporting Remmereit’s dismissal. Like most statements supporting the Board’s decision, no factual evidence is presented beyond vague words and apologies for not laying out the case ( we I cannot tell you what we know because we do not want embarrass anyone). It is typical of Rochester that: only insiders hear the full story and the press (including City) does not aggressively piece together the facts and present them so that the peons know what is really going on. Finally, if fundraising has fallen during the past year, there must be some other cause because everyone I know is ready to open their pocketbooks to support the new level of excellence. If some traditionally large donors do not like Remmereit for personal reasons, there are plenty of us who are willing to step forward. But only if AR stays.