What can be done to save music criticism? In the twilight of the mass media as we know it, there seems nowhere for it to turn. Only the big city papers are able to support full time music critics anymore, and even then the record is spotty. California has but two full time music critics. The country has less than ten. Recently in The New Yorker, Alex Ross painted a bleak picture of the current state of the profession. It was accurate.
Freelancing is not the answer. Not only is there insufficient work to be had, but the pay is horrible, not to say insulting. (I’ll refrain from quoting rates.) What’s more, a freelancer gets no benefits, no healthcare. These days, freelancing turns music criticism into little more than an interesting hobby.
I believe the way ahead for music criticism is to put it on the same basis as the art form which it covers, which is to say non-profit. Every single symphony orchestra, opera company and chorale, and most if not all chamber groups, are non-profit organizations, like museums. Until recently, music criticism has been happily and vigorously supported by for-profit companies, i.e. newspapers. As newspapers sink under the weight of their own mismanagement and myopia, the powers-that-be no longer see a way to do so.
There are a few ways that music criticism could become non-profit. One is for the music critic to establish him or herself, and his or her website, as a non-profit corporation, or 501(c)(3), and then start raising funds from donors and looking for grants from foundations. (I could take your money here, but I’m not a non-profit, so I couldn’t attract large donors who wanted a tax break.)
An easier way is to get a local non-profit to act as your fiscal sponsor. That is, the non-profit (say, Arts OC), accepts the money from donors and grantees (which can then take it off their taxes) and then funnel it to you, the music critic. I’ve looked into this and it appears possible, though it would probably mean spending a lot of time raising money.
A third way would be for the music critic to join a non-profit news organization. I came close to joining one myself and was in the process of raising money to support my own salary before the deal fell apart. But the money is out there, I think, and this could be done. The money to support such a critic could come from donors and grants, but also from the performing organizations that the music critic covers. An ethical conflict? Not necessarily. And not necessarily different from the current situation, in which performing organizations spend lots of money advertising with the newspapers that have critics covering them.
All of these options are online, of course. Getting music criticism back into print in newspapers and magazines is a whole other ball of wax and would entail solving the problems facing print media in general, a task way above my pay grade.
Great post. I’ve been thinking about this for some time, especially since your prior employer made the stupid decision that it did to let you go.
We should chat about this more. I’ll send you a n email separately.
Would having arts organizations donate to critics make it difficult to maintain objectivity? If music writers are already working hand to mouth in most instances, isn’t the danger that they would continue to provide favorable coverage and review of those organizations that sustain them?
I don’t think it would necessarily be more difficult to maintain objectivity that it is now. Performing organizations are paying for critics with their ad money now. If they don’t like what a critic is saying about them, they can take it away.
If there are multiple donors to a critic, there are multiple interests that balance and check each other. In the instance of a critic at a non-profit news publication, he would be once removed from the donations. They would be going to the publication, just as the ad money goes to the paper.
Too bad we don’t live in a country where the notion of government support of arts organizations — and perhaps music critics — was viable …
Is it possible to nominate someone for a Macarthur genius grant? If so, the influential arts people who read Tim’s blog could nominate Tim. One solution …
You are very kind, Paul. I don’t think they take nominations.
From the Macarthur FAQ: “So that we can expand our search for creative people as widely as possible while keeping the number of nominations manageable, we limit our consideration only to those who have been nominated by someone from our constantly changing pool of invited external nominators. Applications or unsolicited nominations are not accepted.”
“I believe the way ahead for music criticism is to put it on the same basis as the art form which it covers, which is to say non-profit.”
Non-profit? Have you seen Deborah Borda’s salary?
Regardless of whether Tim did or not, the question reveals ignorance of a person who posed it, which is not surprising coming from someone who in his comment on another blog confused late Maestro Carlo Maria with former Mayor Rudy and declared that Ernest Fleischmann “started the Bowl season” (sic) – a ridiculous statement of a truly alternative fact that was correctly debunked in very fair and thorough responses by the blogger (see https://allisyar.com/2017/03/15/deborah-borda-leaving-la-phil-to-go-back-to-ny-phil/#comment-34102 ). The quote from Alex Ross is quite telling there as well.
In a NY Times article that was published last week (see
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/arts/music/los-angeles-has-americas-most-important-orchestra-period.html ), Zachary Woolfe used another relevant quote from Alex Ross and then called Deborah Borda “the leader who guided an already daring institution to new heights over the past 17 years”, adding also, among many other things, that during that time “Ms. Borda completed the soaring Disney Hall, which had been languishing before her arrival; gave new vigor to the Hollywood Bowl, operated by the orchestra and now a reliable cash cow; quintupled the endowment; hired Gustavo Dudamel as music director when he was a fledgling and made him a star”.
Being obsessed with counting another person’s money is unhealthy and unhelpful.
I’ll add to MarK’s comments the following . . .
“Pay for performance” is one of the cliche phrases in business these days, but a well-deserved cliche IMHO opinion. You’d have to be quite a hardcore, hard-bitten socialist/communist/Marxist to believe that the maxim shouldn’t also apply to the non-profit world.
I know of no one — zero, zilch, nada, goose egg — that thinks that Ms. Borda’s performance was anything but world-class, and that she exceeded any goals a 21st-Century orchestra manager could have thrust upon him or her. With that in mind, she deserves every single penny she has made at the helm of the LA Phil, and I wisher her well.
Just to show that the layoff ax is following in places other than just newspapers and arts criticism, today has been a brutal one for folks at ESPN. Some well-known and well-respected sports journalists are losing their job.
– http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/confirmed-espn-layoffs-constantly-updated.html
If the self-proclaimed “Worldwide Leader in Sports” can’t keep a staff to cover sports on the same scale they have over the past decade, I’m deeply saddened to think of the implications of the same economics on for-profit media’s coverage of the arts.
Something has to be done, some new concepts considered and ventured . . . (I’m still thinking about it, Tim. Still need to get my butt behind the OC so we can discuss over a dram or three).
(apologies for the typos. I really shouldn’t try to do this from my phone)