Have you heard the one about the efficiency expert who went to a performance of Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony?*
Funny? Sure. But nowadays, it’s not too far off the mark, I fear.
I read an article a few years ago (and for the life of me, I can’t remember where, or by whom, and I haven’t been able to track it down) about reaching the limits of efficiency. Orchestras are the most dramatic example of late, but many live arts presenters are struggling to get the greatest possible return with the least possible investment. Theaters are moving pit orchestras to separate rooms so they can sell more seats. Concerts are programmed based on what music the organization owns so they spend minimal amounts on new repertoire. Sets are becoming more “minimalist” – in part, because it is less expensive to paint flats than to build a full-blown set.
In the recording industry, artists and engineers are increasing their use of multi-track recording and digital manipulation to make a few musicians sound like a crowd. And music distributors are moving farther and farther away from “hard products” like CDs in favor of digital downloads. It’s just getting harder and harder to recoup your investment. Everyone is looking for the shortcut.
Every arts organization I know of is tightening their belt, looking for ways to do more with less every single year, and still bring quality performances to their audiences. But I fear they are approaching a limit that cannot be worked around, buried, or simply willed away.
The human factor.
What I’m about to say could apply to almost any artist, but for the sake of this blog entry, let’s talk specifically about musicians. The first factor is practice. No matter how efficient a musician may be in their individual practice sessions, there comes a point where the body and mind simply can’t absorb the information any faster. Once that kind of efficiency is reached, there are no shortcuts to be taken.
Nor is there a shortcut for group rehearsals. Even if every single musician in an orchestra has practiced Torke’s Jasper until it is memorized, they still can’t simply hop up on stage the night of the performance, and give a solid performance of a 12-minute work cold. It takes rehearsal, at tempo or below, enough times to get it right.
And then, there is the performance itself. There are no more shortcuts left, which is the real joy of live performance. A 12-minute work takes 12 minutes to perform. Audience and performers are swept up in the same musical currents for the duration of a piece, bringing a unity to all the participants that is unique to the live experience.
Meanwhile, arts organizations are cutting, cutting, cutting away as much as they can, to make the most of what they have. And I fear they are reaching that limit, the human limit, that cannot be cut any further. Yet we continue to ask individuals to do as much (or more) with less, because there are no more shortcuts available in other areas. In other words, we ask the impossible.
Believe me, I wish I had a solution to achieving the highest performance standards with even lower costs. Unfortunately, I don’t.
*Just in case you haven’t heard it . . .
An efficiency consultant gave his critique of Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony:
- For a considerable period, the oboe players had nothing to play. Their number should be reduced, and their work spread over the whole orchestra, thus avoiding peaks of inactivity.
- All 24 violins were playing identical notes. This seems unnecessary duplication, and the staff in this section should be drastically cut. If a large volume of sound is needed, this could be obtained by the use of an amplifier.
- Much effort was involved in playing the 16th notes. This seems an excessive refinement, and it is recommended that all notes should be rounded off to the nearest eighth note. If this were done, it would be possible to paraprofessionals instead of experienced musicians.
- No useful purpose is served by repeating with horns the passage that has already been played by the strings. If all such passages were eliminated, the concert could be reduced from two hours to 20 minutes.
- The symphony is in two movements. If Schubert did not achieve his musical goals by the end of the first movement, then he should have stopped there. The second movement is unnecessary and should be cut.
- In the light of the above, one can only conclude that if Schubert had paid attention to such matters, his symphony would probably have been finished by now.