Alex C wrote:If the band is a 'fun' group, say so and don't pretend otherwise. If the band is a 'raise the bar' group, then you cannot tolerate bad playing.
Alex, there's quite a lot of middle ground between these extremes, including
all of the bands I've played in (as a member or as a sub) from obscure suburban community bands to the National Concert Band of America. Some required auditions, and many didn't, but none were completely free of bad playing. All, however, were interested in "raising the bar." But the difference is that their interest was in raising the bar
for the musicians willing to commit to the group. So, rather than weeding out bad players, they focused on improving bad players. And they did that by the arts of persuasion, the power of good examples, and the demands of the music, as I have described before. The audition groups have been the most contentious in this regard because consistent audition standards are nearly impossible to sustain.
I worry about groups that focus only on the product going to the audience. If a group seems like a job, and if only pro-quality musicians are good enough to be in it, then how long will it be before they demand to get paid? Indeed, some amateur groups have the express intention of becoming professional groups, at least to some degree, and groups like that are not the ones I'm worried about. Their members are making an investment in future remuneration (vis a vis making an investment in their own enjoyment and satisfaction). Many groups, however, write their mission as if they are interested in providing outlets for community musicians to express themselves, and then plot against those in the group who aren't good enough to meet their standard (and everyone in the group has a different standard). Those groups often tear themselves apart.
But it is not a given that an all-comers group has to be a poor-quality group. Listening to the recordings made by the Austin Symphonic Band in the late 90's, as I have done, reveal that an all-comers group can be pretty darn good. Nobody will confuse them with the Dallas Wind Symphony, of course, but then DWS members expect to get paid.
In our group, we have agreed as a group (and as a board) that the objective of the group is musical,
within the context of the pool of musicians in the community. We are not primarily a social group. There are people who have been in that group for a decade who still have to think before remembering the names of others who have been in that group just as long. But we can mostly remember the music we've played, and how we played it.
But we are still an all-comers group. The strategy consistent with our mission is therefore to put challenging music on the stand and allow self-selection. Occasionally, that isn't enough, and that's when private conversations happen. Even more occasionally (perhaps twice in the 11 years I've been in the group) it blows up and has to be handled officially. Because of the clarity of how we state our mission, however, we are even able to hire ringers effectively to make it possible for us to play literature that would be impossible otherwise. The ringers are told that their role is a supporting role, and they are not allowed to take solos or dictate how parts are distributed (exception being when they are covering a part not otherwise covered at all). They fill in so that those who have learned those solos (however imperfectly) don't blow their chops before they get to them. We have never had a problem with that, and the pros we've hired have been a joy to have in our group because of that clarity.
A lot of people have tried our group and moved on--either it wasn't good enough for them (in their perception) or they were too intimidated by our programming.
One aspect of the difficult programming is that we recognize our stage product will be imperfect. But since our mission is to satisfy ourselves as well as our audiences, and since our audiences are more forgiving of us than we are of ourselves, we are happier with worthwhile music and some imperfections compared with schlocky and boring "educational" music that might be more technically perfect. I insist, however, that a band will achieve its technical level no matter how much it tries to program down to the members--people will work hard to improve their ability to play wonderful music even if it is beyond their abilities. They won't bother with
Symphony of Sitcoms and the like.
Perfect programming for a community group asks for about 105% or 110% of their abilities. The result is that we get better as time goes on, and it becomes even more satisfying. Isn't that raising the bar?
Rick "President, Loudoun Community Bands, Inc." Denney
