Mumbo Jumbo Mantras at the BBC Proms

What's really going on behind the scenes at BBC Radio 3 and at the Proms?  Before cheering the end of TV-themed Proms like DrWho, Cbeebies etc etc, let's look analytically behind the maudlin platitudes. So Alan Davey, head of BBC R3, has finally twigged that "new" audiences aren't necessarily Proms audiences?  What a revelation!  The "theory: that you get people into the Albert Hall and they see what it’s like and that it’s actually quite nice, and they come back for something else.” is mumbo jumbo mantra,  mindlessly repeated to numb dumb minds.

Since people go to the Royal Albert Hall all year round, for all kinds of events, why should they be afraid of the building?  That's supposition without substance.  It's not houses that scare the punters but perceptions based on falsehood, like "elitism" which the nonsense mantra stupidly reinforces.  The success of Proms in the Park should be evidence that people can have a good time with classical music, of a sort, whatever the situation, without downgrading core product?
 
Given that classical music can be accessed in more ways now than ever before, why should physical attendance be a prerequisite? Didn't someone at the BBC realize that they broadcast worldwide and online, or don't they tell each other ?  That is the "new" audience for classical music, potentially greater than ever before. But policymakers are trapped in the Stone Age of "bums on seats".  The government, and Arts Council England, are straitjacketed into geographical, small-scale thinking that bears little relation to reality.  All over Europe, orchestras, opera houses and concert promoters are wise to the fact that technology reaches bigger potential audiences. And audiences who have more choice are more sophisticated, less easily fooled by gimmick marketing. The way ahead is not dumb down but smart-up.  That's why top-quality new concert halls have been opened in centres of excellence like Paris and Berlin: the Philharmonie de Paris, the Pierre Boulez Saal in Berlin,  and La Seine Musicale.  Even Hamburg, a little off  the beaten track, has raised its game with the Elbphilharmonie.  Some may gloat that we don't need a world-class concert hall in the UK. But culture is global industry: being Luddite is Little Britain blindness.

And why pick on the Dr Who and CBeebies Proms, which were so successful they sold out fast, providing income for other things?  Those were fun and surprisingly high quality, like the Science Prom a few years back. Nothing wrong with a populist tag, as long as the music is well chosen and well performed.  And that's where the new announcement shows its flaws.  Does someone, somewhere, like trash as long as it doesn't promote the BBC?

There arre plenty of non-BBC brand gimmicks this season.  A lot of Proms , even those with mainstream classical music, seem aimed at audiences who don't care much about music, and are easily fobbed off by big names and safe repertoire.  John Wilson, light music, film music, are all OK in small doses,  but not elevated to canonic status.  How will the "sensory" Prom work for people with disabilities when the Royal Albert Hall itself is not at all disability-friendly. A significant part of the core audience, many of whom have  who have dedicated a lifetime to the Proms, are now excluded because basic facilities are so inadequate.   Even the website's annoying. They've even killed the composer search section in the Proms archive !

The over-riding philosophy seems to be that whoever is making policy has neither faith in the core product, serious music, nor faith in the ability of audiences to discern the difference between trash and treasure.  This is absolutely not what Sir Henry Wood stood for. But the new Regime blithely uses his name for self-promotion and flogs the anodyne Ten Pieces mentality instead. Ten Pieces was a joke once: now it's too moronic to bear.  It's a symptom of the lemming-like rush towards mindless stupidity.

The real problem lies not with the Proms and the BBC but a whole cultural dumbing down, enshrined in Government policy towards the arts and towards the BBC. I've written about this many times over the years (follow the labels below on arts policy, BBC  policy, music education, etc etc).  The Elephant in the Room ? Political agendas, not economic reality.   The arts are a big part of this country's economic success and international status.  The arts aren't cheap because excellence is always hard to attain. But everyone benefits when a nation has a thriving arts culture.  The BBC and the arts do more for British prestige and foreign policy than goonish sabre rattlers and the cultivation of dubious allies.  Mess up the arts and mess up big time.  Witness the demise of the ENO and the denigration of London as a whole.  So what is really going on?

We live in an age of Trojan Horse Policies, everywhere and in many fields. People are manipulated into "taking back control"  while handing over control to vested interests whose concerns have little to do with good governance or even public benefit.  We need to face the fact that many would be delighted to see the BBC scrapped because it competes with private interests. But if private interests are so great, why are they so afraid of competition?  The idea that culture is part of civilization prevails:  the Royal Albert Hall stands as a monument to an enlightened age where policymakers had faith in the ability of ordinary people to progress through knowledge. Unfortunately, market forces operate for the benefit of whoever profits by fair means or foul.  Market forces can be manipulated, against the wider interests of the community.  Some ideals that we cherish, like public health, education, the arts and the environment,  need communal involvement.  When  market forces become mantra,  the minority profit at the expense of the majority. Market forces are a political construct, and not necessarily good for the wider economy. 

Open Up the Royal Opera House

The Royal Opers House Open Up project starts in May. Plans were announced ages ago and now, a new section on the ROH website gives more detail. Open Up addresses the use of space within a historic site hemmed in on one side by the Covent Garden Piazza and on the other by Bow Street.

Thankfully, the revolving doors on both sides will go. They slow down entry and exit.  The Bow Street facade will be enlarged and glazed over, to make more space inside. it's good that they're improving the Bow Street entrance.   It's a primary point of access, so it would be extremely inconvenient to force patrons into the overcrowded Piazza area, when they might avoid it altogether. The ROH doesn't necessarily cater for the tourist and busker crowd! Intelligent use of wasted space on Bow Street and a nice new terrace above. Hopefully there will be more places to sit when waiting, though I appreciate that nonticket holders can colonize them, the way the old Box Office toilets became public use.

More urgently, there'll be a revamp of the Linbury Studio Theatre, which is so cramped that it's a no-go area for many. Like the Sadler's Wells Theatre it was built for dancers. Which is fine if you're under 30 and as flexible as a dancer. Most of us aren't. The seats in the present Linbury are so cramped that they drive away patrons who might otherwise enjoy being part of the audience. The industrial metal fittings will go, too, to be replaced by more acoustic-friendly wood.  Hopefully capacity will be improved, too.

More controversial is the suggestion that part of the Ampitheatre terrace will be enclosed to extend the restaurant. But isn't Covent Garden already packed with restaurants? What will a few extra covers add? And at what cost to opera-goers   If ROH restaurant goers don't like mixing with hoi polloi who go for music, that's their problem. Unfortunately, the rich expect privileges, but not all of them are actually opera lovers and many won't turn into donors.  In any case giving in to that kind of donor is dangerous. One of the mantras in arts admin is the idea that cafés are more important than performance space, hence the idea of turning the Coliseum foyer into a sandwich shop.  It's a silly short-term notion, into which companies are forced because funding bodies don't understand that the cost benefits of art don't lie simply in balance sheets.

More scalps? John Berry leaves ENO

More scalps for the mob? Once, opera was about art.  Now it seems that art is dictated by those who want to enforce their own fundamentalist agendas, not all of which are necessarily artistic. So John Berry has left the ENO after eight years in which the company has had many great successes, for example, Mastersingers,  Benvenuto Cellini,  Peter Grimes and much else. The ENO wins awards for artistic excellence but does that matter?  We hear over and over about Arts Council England singling out the ENO for savage cuts and placing the house under "special measures" but precious little in terms of actual facts and figures.We also hear the same old story about the departure of Martyn Rose and Henriette Gõtz, who wasn't in the job long enough to make an impact.  That's because, instead of well-informed investigation, we're blessed with cut-and-paste journalism.

It's a sad day for art.  I've no idea who will replace John Berry but I hope it will be someone with artistic vision who can defend the ENO and preserve its status. Please read my other articles on the place of the ENO in British cultural life.

ENO annual financial review 2013/14

Save the ENO : British culture and phoney class war

Radical rethink  ENO heritage

Opera houses and houses for opera 

and perhaps most pointed of all
Wagner's prescient Warning : Mastersingers of Nuremberg, ENO vindicated

New CEO at ENO ? The questions

When the Arts Council England placed sanctions on the ENO, it said it wanted someone "qualifed" to take over as CEO.  So they've appointed Cressida Pollock. A good journalist would ask, who is she, and what can she bring to the job?  There isn't much on the net about her as she's relatively junior. Her Linked In profile: Four jobs in 5 years -  with gaps - one of them as Summer Associate and two running parallel.  Even Henriette Gõtz  had more relevant background.  It's not paramount that the incumbent should have arts experience, but it  would help as long as they can demonstrate dedication and leadership. Age, too isn't necessarily a problem (Pollock is 32), but this is a job that involves political machination as well as financial acumen.  Maybe Pollock is a genius, but the challenges facing the ENO are so great that it would take someone truly amazing to sort them out.  Unfortunately the press are supine, regurgitating press releases instead of asking questions. What is really going on?

Analyzed in context : Rattle's concert hall for London.

Simon Rattle has called for a new concert hall for London. He's right, in principle, because a city as prominent on the international circuit as London deserves  a concert hall commensurate with its status.  There's a good business case for it. If London is to remain competitive with Berlin and Paris, it needs a long-term strategy, with vision.  We're talking of a project like the Philharmonie, possibly £500 million. I suspect that Rattle wasn't simply talking off the top of his head, but might have an idea of what's best for Britain.

There's far too much "Little Britain" thinking around. There is just no way such a concert hall, any concert hall, would be a sweetener to lure Rattle to London. (See my earlier piece here.)  He'll come if he wants, for reasons of his own. (CBSO might need a new chief soon.) The Simon Rattle Concert Hall, as it deserves to be named, must be done properly, and in the much wider context of a vision for London.  Government planning doesn't happen on a whim (except for foul-ups and white elephants).  Instead, go to the source: The Chancellor George Osborne's Long Term Economic Plan for London.

The strategy identifies six key areas for development - economic growth, jobs, investment in transport infrastructure and housing, new powers for the Mayor, and for the arts, to "make London a centre of the world’s creative and commercial life, with new investment in science, finance, technology and culture. This will include a new feasibility study to develop a world class concert hall for London which will be led by the Barbican Centre. " 

Notice that the project will be led by the Barbican. Nicholas Kenyon helped to turn the Barbican around from being a soulless hulk to a pretty good venue.  In theory, the South Bank should be Britain's spectacular arts flagship on the Thames, but it's been run into the ground under present management and the arts policies of several governments.  Since the Arts Council England has slashed the Barbican's funding almost as severely as the ENO's, one hopes the new centre won't harm existing organizations, such as the unique Wigmore Hall (which has welcomed the proposals).


The most important thing about the Long Term Economic Plan is that it's for London.  There is just no way around the fact that Britain is a highly centralized country. Millions live within the M25, and millions more commute and visit, not only from the UK but from abroad. Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool are important but London is the Jewel in the Crown, like it or not. politicians are at last addressing reality. Get London right, and from thence good things flow, including to the regions.

Current arts policy derives from the Arts Council's "Great Art and Culture for Everyone" (2010-2020), though its roots go back much further. This updates previous plans like "Achieving Great Art for Everyone"  and "Culture Knowledge and Understanding", three grandiose statements within three years, striking in their use of corporate-speak platitudes. In substance, what they propose is placing "education" above the realities of performance and changing the very nature of the arts  in favour of some theoretical one size fits all.  But the arts aren't like that.  It's an arts policy based on the assumption that ordinary people are too stupid to value the arts without being patronized. But the arts can't ever replace good basic educational policy. Nor  can they simply be "taught": people come to the arts in their own time, and in their own way. Please see my article End the Missionary Position in the Arts.  Indeed, many "educational" measures are counter-productive and end up reinforcing the idea in many that the arts are "not for them". Education is a good thing but it should start from a much wider context, instead of diverting arts organizations from their primary purpose, which is the creation of artistic excellence.

This is also an arts policy that penalizes London, and plays on the negative resentment espoused in some quarters by those who'd like to whip up class and regional resentment. But the fact is that Britain is a highly centralized country, and that London is economically pre-eminent, and has been for hundreds of years.  Downgrading London is madness. The arts are an international business,. If London arts prosper, benefits flow to the rest of the country. It's a complete fallacy to equate audience size in live performance with true audience reach. Furthermore, even those who don't participate in classical music enjoy the wider benefits. The arts are a major industry, with numerous spin-offs. Few other countries have the riches that London has, thanks to visionary Victorians. Why sacrifice a unique heritage on which Britain's prestige is built?  Being a leftist, I'm passionately committed to the idea of readdressing inequality, but the arts are not the weapon by which it will be achieved.

So back to Osborne's Long Term Plan for London. Although it doesn't specify anything else about the arts, at least it acknowledges that London is the key to Britain;'s economic credibility and that the arts are an integral part of the economy, not a luxury to be resented.  In an election year, one must never forget the Tooth Fairy, and politicians of all types love Gravy Trains. However, it's at least an advance over the inept naivety behind current arts policy. There is a huge business case for the arts in Britain, and London should be at the helm.

Opera Houses and Houses for Opera

Imagine an opera house lilke this on the banks of the Thames. It's the home of the Valencia Opera,  designed by Dr Santiago Calatrava, completed in 2007. It's so beautiful that perhaps it should be part of the international opera circuit. But what really makes a house is what happens inside. In the current non-debate about the ENO there have been calls to turn it into a trendy café or to scrap the building altogether. Are things that easy ?

Firstly, the deal with which the ENO occupies the Coliseum means that it doesn't have to pay commercial West End rents. It might move somewhere less convenient, thereby driving away part of the audience, changing its demographic, which has a knock-on effect on what it does, artistically.  Even if an alternative place could be found, there's no guarantee that the Coliseum could be sold profitably enough at short notice to make the transition worthwhile. Though, quite possibly, there are those who would welcome the chance to profit from a bargain, if such a sale were forced.  Not good for ENO, though.

Second what you see upfront in an opera house is only the surface: backstage is a warren of workshops, rehearsal rooms, technical support, dressing areas etc. Which is why most houses outsource so much to other premises.  Part of the ENO business plan is to consolidate this support in one area, but that might be asking too much.  Thirdly, the Coliseum is the largest theatre in London, and never easy to fill.  Most West End theatres are significantly smaller, and most shows don't run into profit unless they've been going on a long time. Do we really want a single opera to run for months, exactly the same every night  How would that affect singers and players?  At the other end of the scale, what about the Raymond Gubbay route, filling the Royal Albert Hall with water to do Madame Butterfly for people who don't actually like music but want a good night out.  Which is fair enough, but art it ain't.  The ENO can't really move back to Sadler's Wells, which is way too small. Shows may sell out in small spaces but so what if the overall take is reduced? Quality cannot be judged by capacity figures alone.

Perhaps the elephant in the room is, after all, changing audiences. The last ten years have seen a disintegration of the values of tolerance and openness. Where once some could preach "the End of History", now we're plagued by ignorance, bigotry and fundamentalism of all kinds.  Once, mature thinking came gradually, through a process of listening and learning. Now anyone can be an instant expert  thanks to Google and mass media.  So maybe the battle for the arts is already lost.

HERE is a link to an informative article in the Economist about opera as a business. Opera houses operate in co-operation with each other.  Scrapping one house impacts on the whole industry, worldwide.  Much of the current non-debate focuses on micro issues, like not liking a composer, or details of particular productions, when what we really need is an appreciation of how the business works. A few weeks ago, I addressed some of the issues here, in my article "Radical Rethink".

ENO 2014/15 - sound heads, good sounds

"From terrorism, invasion and despair through to miracles, enlightenment and joy, two millennia of history, four centuries. of (opera)....... reveal the unique ability of opera to convey what it is to be human"  .... a good summary of the English National Opera's 2014 2015 season. Sixteen productions, eleven of them new, from Monteverdi Orfeo to another world premiere by a British composer. ( Don't forget Julian Anderson's The Thebans on Saturday). Along the way, Henry Purcell's The Indian Queen, Verdi Otello, The Girl of the Golden West, The Mastersingers of Nuremburg, John Adams The Pirates of Penzance. The Queen of Spades and much more. A season with lots of varety, and even an opera for children. Getting the very young involved, is a good idea - it's done a lot in mainland Europe.

Even more interesting is what the announcement reveals about the ENO's financial strategy.  Contrary to the negative flak in the media, the ENO expects to end the year with a surplus, following better than expected box office sales, Attendances were up 11% over the previous year, while the average finamcial take per performance rose by13%. Some nights, there was standing room only (Madam Butterfly, The Magic Flute) and Peter Grimes, Rodelinda and Rigoletto ran 77% capacity. Audience capacity rose by 7% to 76%. That's  still much lower than the ROH where the house is often within 5% capacity, but the comparison isn't really fair since the ROH audience is very different. Overall audience was 182,242

Martyn Rose's first full year as Chairman of the Board at ENO has seen ventures like Opera Undressed do well. A total of 1800 seats were sold for Opera Undressed, some within minutes, as with The Magic Flute, . Of those who booked for Opera Undressed, 28%  booked for further performances. The Secret Seat scheme  where you pay £20 on the chance of getting something much better has done well - many of my friends have been delighted at getting dress circle seats at a quarter the normal price. Very nice, but it's a system which can't really be extended too far, unlike Opera Undressed, which targets first timers and charges more.

The ENO's HD screening of Peter Grimes was the highest grossing UK screening ever for an opera by a British composer - pity it was ruined by transmission problems as it took place on the night of the worst storm all winter. HD broadcasts are expensive and risky (even ROH doesn't make huge profits) but the ENO  will be doing five broadcasts in 2014/15, some overseas. Three safe bets - Otello, La Traviata and Carmen (vindicating Calixto Bieito) but more imaginatively, The Pirates of Penzance and The Long Way Back Home, the newly commissioned opera for children. These latter are perhaps more significant because they're aimed at audiences who wouldn't otherwise come to "formal" opera,  and extend the ENO's reach to new potential markets. The Long Way Home sounds wonderful - might it be the surprise hit of the season?

The "national" in ENO has always been a joke, but this year, the ENO is working with the Old Vic Theatre in Bristol, the oldest purpose built theatre in the country.  Perhaps the ENO's Bristol  Orfeo will be as successful as the ROH's L'Orfeo at Shakespeare's Globe. It's a good connect between performing space and work, and extends ENO outside London. It's wise, too, that the ENO, like the ROH, is cultivating relationships with other organizations. Alliances with other houses, of around the same size and eclecticism as the ENO spreads costs and reduces risk. No-one stands alone in this business.  The ENO is also starting an interesting  partnership with UCL, the university which has been mounting rare operas for over 60 years.

Peter Sellars has been appointed  "Director in Residence" which hopefully means his staging of John Adams The Gospel According to the Other Mary which was not well received at the Barbican despite being conducted by Dudamel. More fun maybe with Purcell The Indian Queen, a joint venture with Teatro Real Madrid. Edward Gardner conducts the Mastersingers of Nuremburg and The Queen of Spades. The "9/11" opera is Between Worlds, composed by Tansy Davies, about a man walking a tightrope between the Twin Towers.

ADDENDUM : yet again the media seizes on a relatively minor issue and blows it out of proportion.  It's not essential that people who write about opera need to know anything about it, but it would be nice if some could just comprehend the wider issues ? No, the ENO is not switching to music theatre, it's just giving Michael Grade and Michael Linnit a space for them to do new work in the summer. Music theatre done well can be good, and might bring in new audiences for opera. Besides, if ENO makes money out of Linnit and Grade, why not ? It's not like they're handing the place over  and paying him for the privilege. qv the South Bank and Alex Ross.

How children learn about opera in China

How to help kids love opera? These days every decent house needs "outreach" partly to develop genuine interest and partly to justify funding. Some of my recent posts on the subject : Will children ever learn about opera ? and End the Missionary Position in Classical Music

 Here's how children learn about opera in Hong Kong. These schoolgirls were given a brief to make a documentary about any subjectb they liked and somehow picked Cantonese Opera with its long and complicated history and sub-genres. They had to research the subject for themselves, read up, do interviews and then do the "practical" working with opera personnel as well as with film makers. They wrote the script and presented it themselves. The film is six years old  and the final sequence about Chinese opera in English is misguided, but these girls are in PRIMARY school. This isn't a single occasion, but a regular experience for many kids in many schools. I went through that system too though I didn't do it until the first three years of secondary school. It was my school that pioneered the system sixty years ago. They did a full production of Purcell Dido and Aeneas. and even sewed the costumes themselves.  I was seven, way too young to be involved, but remember being fascinated.  A few years ago, they did The King and I which went on to DVD and sold well.

The secret of real education, I think, is to learn by doing: self motivation and fun. The subject doesn't matter, and the whole class gets involved. It's also a good way to teach kids how to organize themselves and project manage. Good multi-skilling training for life in general.

End the Missionary Position in Classical Music

Time to end the Missionary position in classical music, where middle class western pundits pontificate on what's best for lesser beings. The motives may be noble but the underlying assumption isn't. When "civilised" folk bemoan the fact that non-white, non middle-class audiences don't flock to concerts and opera, they're implicitly replicating the values of imperial aggression. Just as Victorian missionaries took it upon themselves to force the "natives" to hide their nudity and ancient beliefs, modern cultural do-gooders take it upon themselves to wail that other people don't do as they do, and get paid hefty amounts of public money in the process.

Why shouldn't the "natives"  (of any colour or class) enjoy pop, rock, grime, hip hop or whatever? The western classical tradition is barely 300 years old. Chinese opera, for example,  pre-dates Monteverdi, and rose from a sophisticated literary tradition that goes back much further. Indeed, classical tradition isn't any more superior in the west than other western traditions like popular music, hymns and theatre.  Classical music proselytizers are far too full of themselves.

Yes, it would be good if classical music audiences reflected the demographics of the world outside the concert hall. But that's not going to happen because someone gets public funding to talk about it.  Fact is, people come to classical music when they are ready, and people are ready in different stages. This kind of hand wringing serves to entrench the idea that classical music is elitist It's short-sighted luvvie policy to con younger audiences into halls while effectively excluding loyal and well-informed audiences (who often see through the sham of trendy thinking). There will always be a mix of young (student) audiences and older folk - those in the middle have mortgages and young families to worry about. Respect that. Above all, it's a stupid idea to dumb down. Sure that raises sales statistics, but long term it does no good for the kind of quality and high standards that make good classical music so enthralling in the first place.

There was news this week that China might be the most Christian country in the world by mid century. Pay heed, for this is relevant to the future of classical music. In China, millions have been poor for millennia, but the idea of culture as something to strive for has kept people motivated. Parents would starve so their kid could go to school.  Non-western people are not primitive  If they can recognize the intrinsic value of something, they'll go for it. That's why thousands of Chinese kids play piano, listen and enjoy. Sure they have pushy parents and enroll in competitions, but so do kids in the west. Somewhere along the way, people enjoy themselves. It's not at all unusual to see kids at concerts in China. Even in London: I observed a Russian pre teen at Faust last week, intently involved with what was going on. A lesson to some badly behaved adults who think they know everything and sneer.

So the trendies can contemplate their navels all they like, it won't change a thing. Better, I think to respect classical music for what it is, and keep up the standards. Definitely music education in schools makes a difference. But these days there are so  many more choices and opportunities.  Western classical music is something very special and very precious, so it needs support.  But ramming it down people's throats doesn't help. Old style mssionaries got kicked out of  China 65 years ago, but Christianity has grown better than ever because the time is right. It sells because the product is worth buying. So, too, with music.

More uncultured Culture Ministers ?

 A Minister for Culture doesn't have to know much about the arts, but his/her brief is not to destroy.  The newly appointed Minister for Culture, Sajid Javid, apparently said in 2011 "Ticket resellers act like classic entrepreneurs, because they fill a gap in the market that they have identified." This is an extremely sensitive issue in the arts world. Any competent business person knows that you can't shoot off without knowing the terrain. You check out the ground first. I don't think Javid is stupid. Let's hope he's learned.

One of Alex Beard's earliest pronouncements since he took up his post as head of the Royal Opera House was to address the long standing problem of ticket touts. "Being complicit in ticket touting should be illegal, (he) has argued, as he admits it is “desperately unfair” on would-be audience members but so far “impossible” to prevent.... (nobody) “come up with a silver bullet” to solve the problem of touting.He has now argued for the “straightforward” method of making “it illegal to be complicit in the sale of invalid tickets”.(source here)

"The frustrating thing in our case is that it tends to be the cheaper seats and it tends to be an extraordinary mark-up, effectively misselling,” he said.“That damages two things. Firstly the quality of the poor people who have bought it, because the tickets themselves are not valid. And two, it means fewer people are able to get cheap seats to the Opera House.”He added it is “just at the moment impossible” to stop resellers from plying their trade.“The ones that are being touted tend to be the five and ten pound tickets, which are presented on these resale website as though they’re the top priced tickets,” he said.“It’s desperately unfair, both to the people who have bought these invalid tickets because they won’t be able to get entry into the opera house, and for the people who otherwise would have been able to purchase them.”“People have been wrestling with this issue now for decades, and nobody has come up with the perfect silver bullet, as it were, to take the touts out of business." 

It's not just the ROH. The BBC Proms have the same problem. These sales have nothing to do with promoting the arts, because they bring in punters with more money than taste or basic common sense. Sure, people miss out when tickets sell out quickly, but it's the touts who create the situation in the first place. Eliminate them, eliminate the problem. 

Government exists (in theory) to keep things in relative balance. If governments believe in unalloyed greed, what's the point ? Do MP's who think the system exists so they can fiddle expenses going to stand up to pressure from commercial inducements. Conflict of interest - and the "C" word that eats away at Parliamentary ethics like a cancer.

ENO appoints Surprise Executive Director

Surprise new Executive Director at the ENO - or maybe not such a surprise, since candidates from within are few and far between. The post has been up for grabs since July last year, so presumably the news got round in the business long before the job was advertised in November. This is a critical assignment, at a time when the ENO is facing big challenges. So what might this mean ? (Please read my other pieces on the situation at the ENO - About Anthony Whitworth Jones HERE and Radical rethink HERE and ENO Vindicted HERE.

The new Executive Director is Henrietta Götz, who will start within a few weeks. Götz has twenty years experience since university, which would make her 40 something. She was most recently Executive Director of Vlaamse Opera, Belgium, which she joined in 2009 and left recently. .She also runs Arts & Consulting Int., an international consultancy providing finance, organisation, marketing and sponsoring advice and management services to arts and cultural institutions. You don't need to be a "creative" to run the business end of an arts organization as long as you care about the arts. Which is more than can be said for UK Ministers of Culture.

More unusually she has an interesting background, being connected to the Fidel Götz Foundation which supports charities in the Third World. Not, hopefully, someone who's in awe of money and power ?  Even charities should be run by good business minds. In a job like this, a person's inner personality counts.  (Alas, again a relevant observation on the probity of some UK Ministers for Culture)

This appointment happens exactly - to the very day - of Martyn Rose's appointment as Chairman of the Board at the ENO which heralded a change in management style. Götz will be responsible for leading organisational operations including finance, theatre management, marketing, sales and fundraising functions.Jeremiahs will always howl about the ENO, but in many ways it's in a better condition than it was ten years ago. It has exceeded its box office target for 2013/14 and "will definitely finish the financial year in a balanced position – with the possibility of a small surplus" says the press release.

In the US, opera companies and orchestras are going into meltdown.. Sure, European houses get subsidies, but the cultural demographics are completely different. No-one has yet figured out the best business model, but I think that, at the end of the day, it's how you build the audience. Thank goodness for the ENO's belief in artistic vision. That's the business of any arts organization. The executive side "executes",so the artistic product can sell. Not the other way round.(it's Loretta Tomasi's original job for those who didn't notice)

Explosion or implosion ? South Bank Centre

This aerial photo of London's South Bank was taken only six years ago, but it's hard to recognize now. These days you can't walk for the debris,  permanent building works, trucks parked willy nilly and most of London out for the weekend. Is the South Bank consuming itself ? Read this article "Are developers destroying the South Bank?" by Ellis Woodman in the Telegraph. 

The first part of the article deals with the proliferation of office space and high rises around the area.  But scroll down to paragraph 10 which deals with the South Bank Centre. Unlike many other organizations, which object to the developments, the South Bank Centre Board has entered into a financial deal with them. Woodman concludes "Anyone who values the public life of London might also care to take issue with the proposals. The number of shops and restaurants on the South Bank was already much increased by the 2008 refurbishment of the Royal Festival Hall and the prospect of another influx raises real fears about the site’s continued relevance as a space of civic inclusion."

This puts ther £120 million plan to redevelop the South Bank Centre into wider perspective. Attention has been cleverly shifted to the skateboarding community, supposedly a soft target, to deflect closer examination. But what will the extra (and expensive) space be used for?  Billy Bragg, who once had credibility on the left, thinks "local people" whatever that might mean, will benefit from new rehearsal rooms, but how so?  As Woodman says "This fully glazed space is billed as a rehearsal area but its extraordinarily prominent location is more obviously explained by its appeal to the corporate events market. A large volume of new retail and restaurant space has also been deemed necessary to balance the books. Some of this is to be housed in a new “liner building”: a narrow, three-storey slab that will extend down the side of Waterloo Bridge before cantilevering bombastically over the riverside walkway", .And how do poor working class locals benefit when the area becomes upmarket office and luxury apartment space ?

The problem with the proposals is that they're piecemeal : either not at all thought through in terms of cost benefit to the arts, or only too well thought through in terms of disguising the benefits to non arts and non local interests.Surely proposals as far reaching as these should be examined in the context of London- wide or nation-wide arts policy ?

It's not just a South Bank Centre thing. The area is unique,. Arguably it belongs to ordinary people, even arts lovers taking secondary place. As has been suggested, a proper solution might be to deconstruct the monolith of the South Bank Centre altogether. Why not decentralize, as other bodies like the Barbican are doing ? Why not shift South Bank management across town, like the London Sinfonietta and OAE ?  That would free up a whole building and packs of open space. The fact is, the South Bank area is a valuable resource. Why not turn the place into an all purpose public space and relocate the arts facilities elsewhere ? Let those who benefit, ie the rich, finance the move. This is far too big an issue to be left on this level. Isn't there any consistent arts/community policy in this country?

See also "Still fit for purpose?" The Royal Festival Hall.

Still fit for for purpose ? The Royal Festival Hall

At last someone dares to say what many of us have been feeling for some time. The South Bank is no longer fit for purpose. Of course the South Bank should serve the community other than music lovers. But has the balance flipped irredeemably? Douglas Cooksey writes about his recent experiences,  but his words resonate with many others who use the South Bank, even for non-arts functions, like parents and families. Maintenance standards are now extremely poor. Is this the world's biggest public urinal? The day to day staff are not to blame. They are good people but it's not up to them to run the place.  Lifts and toilets are often out of order. Simply getting there is an issue, since the nearest parking is now the National Theatre. What goes wrong at the South Bank Centre impacts on everything nearby.

"London used to boast one of the World's great concert halls, the Queens Hall, which was unfortunately destroyed during the Blitz. Most other major cities with world class orchestras have purpose-built concert halls, the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, the Musikverein in Vienna or Orchestra Hall in Chicago.

The Royal Festival Hall was erected at the time of the Festival of Britain and was never intended as a permanent structure. For most of the subsequent half century, lacking a proper concert hall, it came to be the centre of London's musical life and then by a curious extension of that peculiarly wartime 'patch-and- mend' mentality, it was renovated and dubbed 'iconic'. 

 Since the hall's renovation we know it as "Southbank Centre's Royal Festival Hall", open on all levels to the public, even during concerts. One could reasonably argue that it is no longer a concert hall in any real sense of the word but a public facility, and as such its management transferred to Parks &; Leisure. 

Does any other concert hall - or for that matter the Royal Opera House or any major London theatre - allow the general public unrestricted access at all times. No, they do not. As with the Festival Hall, these locations are also generally recipients of public funding through the Arts Council. The Royal Festival Hall is now used by non concert goers as a convenient meeting place and as free office space with Wi-fi. 
 
At peak times it is simply impossible to find a seat prior to a concert, not a pleasant experience for older people arriving, say, half an hour before a concert. Nor is it acceptable emerging from the main hall during the Interval to be confronted with every seat in the areas immediately adjacent to the hall occupied by groups who are frequently being addressed by a speaker or by raucous groups of people playing cards or by individuals busy on their laptops. These people can be quite aggressive, even intimidating, and often seem to resent the presence of genuine concertgoers who, unlike these free-loaders, may have paid top dollar for their seats. 

 After that glorious final paragraph of Mahler's 4th Symphony (Kein Musik ist ja auf Erden/no Music like this is to be heard on Earth) faded into profound silence earlier this year one emerged to the raucous blare of rap on computers. During yesterday's Philharmonia concert with Ashkenazy, a concert which was actually being broadcast live on Radio 3, in the quieter sections of Manfred it was even possible to hear sounds of the meetings going on just beyond the entrance doors at the side of the stage. It seems that genuine concertgoers at the Royal Festival Hall have now been reduced to second class citizens and any magic of the concertgoing experience effectively destroyed. 

The solution. Either ban non concertgoers from the Royal Festival Hall's upper levels (as used to be the case) or create a new purpose-built concert hall, preferably in the vicinity of Kings Cross. With the arrival of Eurostar and now blessed with excellent underground and overground transport links, Kings Cross would surely be a far preferable location. Having attended more than 1,000 concerts at the Royal Festival Hall since I moved to London in 1970, one has increasingly come to view going to the Southbank with distaste and trepidation, poor value for money and an assault course to be endured rather than enjoyed. By contrast, either the beautifully renovated Usher Hall in Edinburgh or Amsterdam's Concertgebouw, both of which I visit regularly, offer a totally different quality of concertgoing experience and an environment where great music-making can be truly enjoyed. "

Compare the South Bank to the Barbican, also cursed by architecture that seems designed to destroy the human soul. The buildings may be brutal, but the management has done a lot to make the place functional and user-friendly. There have been huge improvements in recent years and the place is well looked after. Students use the facilities during the day, which is good, but they don't take precedence over everyone else. At the South Bank I was once attacked by a man who said I was "invading his personal space " by sitting down at the table (with four seats) which he was using as an office. These "sitters" are not the poor or indigent who need somewhere to keep warm. They have expensive laptops and phones and conduct businesses. Basically, the Barbican cares about those who use it. The balance between uses is reasonable, and new ventures like Milton Court,  St Lukes etc spread the arts into the wider community.

And now the South Bank wants another £120 million.As Richard Morrison said in The Times, the present South Bank buildings are "dysfunctional disasters as well as architectural eyesores. It would surely be simpler, and certainly far more honest, to knock them down instead of trying to dress them up. And it would be a far better use of £120 million to commission a completely new array of arts pavilions next to the Festival Hall, including the world-class, 1,400-seat concert hall that London desperately needs — buildings that could be far more beautiful and fit for purpose than the clapped-out Queen Elizabeth Hall and Hayward Gallery ever were, or will be." 

More Band Aid or Surgery ? National Theatre slams South Bank redevelopment

The National Theatre has lodged a long, detailed and strongly worded objection to the South Bank's proposed redevelopment. Since the National Theatre is an integral part of the South Bank, this objection carries much more weight than most. Read the full objection HERE. The piece is a model of professional, informed analysis, backed by proper architectural and legal input. The project has such huge significance, not only for London, but for the whole country. It needs to be approached in a serious way. The South Bank site gives only a limited, biased account, which is fair enough - they want it to go through without too much scrutiny. Most of us don't have the professional expertise to comment in the way the National Theatre does, which is all the more reason we should pay heed.

"There is a common fallacy reflected in the above paragraphs: that Southbank, the brand, is synonymous with South Bank, the area. Over emphatic boundary-marking is inappropriate to the audience that comes to the arts buildings and moves easily between them, and those who simply come to the Queen's Walk to enjoy the river views and the overspills of animation".  

"In summary, we consider that the proposed development, in particular the Liner building, by virtue of its siting and scale contravenes relevant national, regional and local planning policies relating to the setting of the National Theatre, a grade II* structure; that the proposed building will abrogate the public perception of a unified cultural quarter; and that the wall effect it creates will undermine the amenity value of the National's largest public open spaces."

Under the the terms of consultation process, the National Theatre can only comment as far as the proposals pertain to itself, but the rest of us should be thinking in terms of how the proposals might work out in wider terms. The South Bank will be closed for another three years, only six years after the re-opening of the Royal Festival Hall. This time, the disruption will be even greater, possibly long term. The area has grown piecemeal, without any long term strategy or vision.

"Band Aid or Surgery?"  Cosmetic patches won't solve the problems of the South Bank. The basic problem is that it is a huge, nationally important enterprise squashed into an area hardly big enough to fit a local arts centre. 

Architects design buildings, they don't design cultural policy. The responsibility for that lies not only with South Bank management but with the Arts Council. Where is the vision ? Where is the leadership?  How do piecemeal patches fit in with a wider overall strategy for the arts ?

A much more comprehensive solution to the South Bank's problems might be to diversify and decentralize. Even the Barbican is expanding to new premises and areas.  Notice that the Barbican retains core facilities like the Barbican Hall while outsourcing services that can be housed elsewhere.. The beauty of the Barbican approach is that they go into the community, rather than expecting the community to come to them.  There is no sacred rule that different facilities have to be housed in the same place.

Big scale facilities like the Royal Festival Hall can't be relocated, because they cost so much and are so specialized. But things like poetry workshops can happen anywhere. If the South Bank were decentralized, other parts of South London would benefit it things were spread around a bit. Think of LSO St Lukes rejuvenating Old Street.  It's infinitely better to do a few things extremely well than cram too much together.  There's no reason why the South Bank should become a bazaar. An arts centre should aim at excellence, rather than watering down its main purpose to look trendy. Because the riverfront space is so limited - and so unique - it should be used for prime, high-profile activities that have maximum impact. Rehearsal rooms and offices, and similar activities can be housed elsewhere and at less expense. As the National Theatre says "over emphatic boundary marking is inappropriate".

photo : Matt Brown, London

Opera elitist ? What "Big Question"?

Is opera elitist? That was the "Big Question" posed by a joint Telegraph and ROH event online yesterday. Perhaps the really big question should have been "What's the point?" As television goes it was embarrassingly amateur.  As debate, it wasn't. Perhaps this is a symptom of the Anglo-Saxon need to dumb things down to the lowest possible level. Thank goodness for Mark-Anthony Turnage, who said "If this was Germany, we wouldn't be having this debate". Elitism is a construct which says more about those who use it as epithet than about the subject itself. So what if "the masses" think opera is elitist ? Opera doesn't become elitist because some people think it ought to be. And what's so wrong about elitism, anyway? What's wrong with artists trying to be the best they can possibly be? Do we want a culture based on mediocrity, simply because mediocrity isn't "elitist"?

Out came the usual clichés about ticket prices and suitable clothing, which have been defused long ago.  Football and pop concert tickets can be more expensive than box seats at ROH. As for evening dress, some people actually like glamming up for a sense of occasion,. Social attitudes are projected onto opera which have nothing to do with it as art form. Opera has become a battleground in class war.  In Anglo-Saxon society, it is misused as a status symbol. "I spend, therefore I have taste". And it's not just people who don't do opera.  On any opera discussion group there'll be those bragging about how much they own/have travelled/have read etc. but precious little about what they've actually gained from the experience. In some cases it's bluff.

The whole issue of elitism can be defused by one simple solution. Listen. Listen to what's happening in the music, respond to the drama, enjoy and learn from whatever you experience. It does not matter how much you know or don't know, or what your status is, as long as you engage. As long as you're paying attention it doesn't matter what someone else is wearing, when to applaud, etc etc. It's not elitism we should be worrying about but snobbery.  Unfortunately, it's human nature to be insecure, and to scam.

Band Aid or Surgery - rethinking the South Bank Centre

"The Festival Wing". That's the name for a project to revamp the South Bank by building a glass dome in the space connecting the Royal Festival Hall, the Queen Elizabeth Hall and the Hayward Gallery.  More details HERE from Fielden Clegg Bradley Studios, the architects. The South Bank Centre also has an online exhibition HERE.  There are also plans to redevelop the area behind the RFH and Belvedere Street. There's also an article by Rowan Moore in the Observer HERE.

The South Bank Centre long ago outgrew the space on which it was built sixty years ago. Filling the gaps between the buildings make sense up to a point,. Yet those concrete wastelands between the buildings were part of the original design concept. Just as the original designers intended, the empty spaces have been colonized by "ordinary" people, though they probably didn't think in terms of skateboarders, graffiti and urine. Concrete aesthetic leads to such things.  There's nothing wrong with them in principle because it livens things up. 

But the primary purpose of the South Bank is culture. Culture does, I think, include graffiti, but a skateboard park isn't the most cost effective way of delivering culture on land as valuable and unique with magnificent views over historic London and the Thames. The proposals seem reasonable for what they are but do they really solve the long-term problems facing the South Bank? Are they band aid quickfix where major surgery is needed?
 
The problem with the South Bank is that it tries to do too much for too many  Music events of all types from orchestral concerts to pop concerts, visual arts and literature, theatre and multi-cultural events, chidren's activities, funfairs and foodfairs. Can any single venue cater to all? I'm not the only person to notice the watering-down of the South Bank's classical music services.  Once the South Bank did innovation, like the Messaien and Nono festivals. Now it does pre digested, over simplified commercialism like The Rest is Noise. Anyone could have programmed that. In an age of cutbacks why should the public purse pay for Alex Ross ?

Moreover, the South Bank is one of the few public open spaces in the area; it also serves as an important social service. Where else can Londoners take their kids, chill out and have fun in this area? It's also an escape from the office blocks and social housing in the vicinity. Restaurants and shops are an essential part of the mix, and they bring in much-needed income. Trouble is, the South Bank these days hardly resembles a cultural centre anymore, which defeats its whole raison d'etre. Parking is almost impossible, and disabled facilities poor.  Even the RFH needs a rethink, rather than cosmetic updates.

Another inescapable fact is that the South Bank can be, and should be, a national and international arts centre. That means offering top quality which isn 't available anywhere else. Then it would attract visitors from all over the country, and from abroad. It's politically trendy to be local-friendly but the Unique Selling Point of the South Bank is that it has the potential to be the flagship of British culture,  Just as the Royal Opera House puts London on the international map, so could the South Bank. Already, the Barbican is fulfilling this role with its alliances with other venues and far sighted vision. If the South Bank is to bea glorified community centre, couldn't it be a centre for a much more focussed community ?

Architects design buildings, they don't design cultural policy. The responsibility for that lies not only with South Bank management but with the Arts Council. Where is the vision ? Where is the leadership ?  How do piecemeal patches fit in with a wider overall strategy for the arts ?

A much more comprehensive solution to the South Bank's problems might be to diversify and decentralize. Even the Barbican is expanding to new premises and areas.  Notice that the Barbican retains core facilities like the Barbican Hall while outsou4rcing services that can be housed elsewhere.. The beauty of the Barbican approach is that they go into the community, rather than expecting the community to come to them.  There is no sacred rule that different facilities have to be housed in the same place. Of course there are people who turn up on the day and take whatever is on offer, but that kind of market is inherently limited,

Big scale facilities like the Royal Festival Hall can't be relocated, because they cost so much and are so specialized. But things like poetry workshops can happen anywhere. If the South Bank were decentralized, other parts of South London would benefit it things were spread around a bit. Think of LSO St Lukes rejuvenating Old Street north of the river.  It's infinitely better to do a few things extremely well than cram too much together.  There's no reason why the South Bank should become a bazaar. An arts centre should aim at excellence, rather than watering down its main purpose to look trendy. 

Of course the proposals may all be pie in the sky, since they've only secured £20 million of the £120 million they need. And let's face it, while culture may be essential to the life of a nation, so are health services, education and welfare. These proposals are all very well, but it might be more cost effective in the long term to rethink the whole concept of the South Bank in a much more radical way. Throwing money at problems doesn't make things better. Vision is what vreally counts.