Orchestral Markings
-
Upload
amber-rogers -
Category
Documents
-
view
5 -
download
0
Transcript of Orchestral Markings
Orchestral Markings, Distribution, and Concept of Vision
Current issues: (Particularly rental) Parts being sent out disturbingly close to rehearsals with markings not necessarily 'done' or consistent, Sls unable to do 'job'. Communication with director re; nuance of articulation, shape, style, etc. nil until rehearsals begin. Director is a string player, he knows what he wants, should be responsibility of Sls to convey information. Too much rehearsal time spent on fundamentals and 'damage control'.
Goals: Accurately marked parts. Supplemental information re; history, form, articulation (and technically how to consistently achieve), recordings, scores, etc. to be provided for study.
Observation: BCSO currently straddles the lines between community/regional/teaching/professional orchestra. If expectations of professional product are to be imposed (which is obviously crucial to growth of organization) some amount of spoon-feeding is necessary over 'growth' period. This includes instructions/demonstrations of technique/articulation, and providing necessary history, scores, recordings, etc. The expectation that the orchestra can follow/adapt 'on sight' to director movement/musical implications of said, is (currently) unreasonable given the median/mean skill and experience of section members.
Past Systems
Free For All
Parts marked independently by section leadersMarkings received over course of rehearsals by section musicians
Pros: None
Cons: total fuster cluck
plausible solutions: None. System deeply flawed
Bowing Committee
Parts marked cooperatively by section leadersMarkings made by volunteer committee in parts
Pros: Cost effective, theoretically a perfect solution
Cons: In practice; Volunteers unreliable, incapable of meeting deadlines, accuracy of markings suspect
Plausible solutions: Unclear.
Suggest imposition of regular schedule (i.e. every tuesday during season we meet for two hours with coffee and to mark parts). 'Hard' deadlines must be imposed. Incentives must be offered. Nature of incentives unclear; What motivates a particular group of people to do xyz on a volunteer basis? More (recognized) responsibility? Program thanks? Season tickets? Input in program development? (i.e. 'power' over product?) Idea too good to write off without discussion.
Current System
Parts marked cooperatively by section leadersMarkings delivered to section musicians via interwebs and section players responsible for marking individual parts
Pros: Cost effective, (potentially) accurate, philosophically appealing/engages capability approach
Cons: Time consuming for section leaders to upload, personal accountability and culpability of section leaders and section musicians suspect
Plausible solutions: Unclear
Suspect motivation. If each member is made to feel/know they are responsible for overall product and have crucial role in product improvement of performance possible. Incentive likely crucial; Change in position in section/leadership role?
Proposed Systems
Section Leader Marked
Parts marked cooperatively by section leadersMarkings made by section leaders in parts
Pros: Cost effective and accurate, responsibility delegated to people within the organization, deadlines met
Cons: Very time consuming for section leaders, time not necessarily appropriately compensated, personal accountability of some Sls suspect
Orchestral Librarian Internship
Parts marked cooperatively by section leadersMarkings made by intern in parts
Pros: Accuracy, deadlines enforced/met, engagement of 'outside' resources and thus engaging 'outside' interest
Cons: Cost, director time drain to communicate necessary info, skill needed by potential applicants and time invested to screen (the heck out of) applicants.