CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY MUSICAL SOCIETY

A Committee Meeting was held on 15 June 2006 at 1pm. in Lecture Room 4, in the Music School, West Road.

Executive Officers: Mark Austin (MA) Stephen Cleobury (SC), Chris Ford (CF) Joseph Fort (JF), Daniel Grace (DG) Jacob Head (JH) Maggie Heywood (MH), Dan Hill (DH), Fiona Jacques (FJ) Robert Nimmo (RN) Daniel Trambaiolo (DT) Katy Wyatt (KW)

Co-opted members: Richard Andrewes (RA) John Barber (JB), Simon Fairclough (SF) Claire Pike (CP), Christine Schmalz (CS), Michael Sharp (MS), Jo Whitehead (JW)

3. Matters arising: (6) SF & JW have more to do on contacting the CUMS membership to tell them about the proposed submission to the University.

SC told the committee that next June we shall be celebrating the great contribution MH has made to CUMS over a quarter of a century in performing a programme of works chosen from amongst her favourites. (see complete prog. attached for details)

SC asked all conductors to check the titles of their chosen works for accuracy, before anything is printed or put on the web-site. There was a brief discussion on poster style and branding.

JW asked about the percussion day. This needs further discussion, because although it cannot be done during term on a weekday, because of lack of sufficient space, there may be other possibilities worth exploring. It has a bearing on the Zephyr Concert for Schools, so a decision needs to be made soon.

JW asked CF to do one more check on concert costs and communicate any likely problems by e-mail. JH mentioned that we shall need a C clarinet for the Strauss. SC suggested contacting Mark van der Wiel for guidance. JW also asked if we had decided whether or not to bring the conducting auditions forward to the Mich term. JF said that he thought that would be likely to eliminate first years from applying, and RN said that he didn't think the few extra weeks would make any difference to the choosing of programmes.

5. Long-term proposals JW invited each member in turn to comment on any aspect of the long-term proposals circulated by SF before the meeting. (Note from sec - they are being grouped here by ensemble for ease of reference)

JH asked if we might ask the Faculty if the Zephyrs could replace the new music group which no longer exists, and RA pointed out that the Zephyrs play more contemporary music than any other ensemble, so it would be an appropriate substitution. SF said that we have to accept that there isn't the same appetite in Cambridge for orchestral wind music.

JB Although the Festival model is a possibility he is alarmed at the fragmentation suggested. The educational aspect might be explored. Could we invite choral scholars to attend the last two rehearsals?

SF: Inexperienced singers could be given training in sight-reading, vocal technique, breathing etc to prepare them for membership of the chorus.

RN: Fragmenting the chorus and moving to a town choir would lead to it cutting itself off and running itself. Why don't we offer to run a joint chamber choir?

CP: fragmenting the chorus is not attractive. The educational model - would we spend half of each rehearsal on rudiments and technique, or offer extra classes for the inexperienced? There are probably not enough non-singers to realise a huge increase in our membership with this offer. Singing lessons for all members would be great.

CF: we do want to attract more students to the chorus, with carrots such as concerts in the RAH. (SF: oughtn't CUMS to be a remarkable choral society?)

RN: It's unrealistic to expect us to produce a chorus of choral scholars - that's not going to happen.

JB: We need not limit our discussions to the Director-General - there are others we might want to consult, including some Heads of Houses, eg Master of Magdalene, some have huge resources. There's also the Senior Tutors' Committee.

MS: Should we consider having two choruses, one including the educational element, the other for the better singers.

RA: quite a lot of choral and orchestral needs may be answered by future artistic leadership. Bringing in more at a higher level we shall have more co-operation from Ds of Music.

CS: the most important points for direction - to push towards elitist/high quality is right for CUMS I, but CUMS as a society must also remain inclusive and keep the educational element which is special to CUMS. (SF: there's a difference between fast-track educational programmes and just another orchestra) We're offering something different and she would like to see the development of a) community projects in schools or hospitals b) CUMS summer school with workshops for players, conductors & composers c) arrange exchanges with other universities especially abroad.

SC: CS has given a good summary. He likes the idea of teasing out how we can supply high quality on one hand with all the other worthwhile initiatives. He sees that a long-term goal for the instrument collection is the purchase of baroque timpani. The Faculty is buying a set of baroque instruments, but we haven't been informed about this. The Handel oratorio proposed for next year would be a good opportunity to use them. Can we talk to Martin Ennis?

[Sec's note - she spoke to Martin Ennis about this last week. The set of baroque instruments will be complete by Jan/Feb next year, but there will only be stgs: 3, 3, 2, 2, 1; 2 ob, 1 bassoon, and timps, so even if they had arrived in time for our concert there would not be enough for the size of orchestra we would need to accompany the chorus. They may increase the number in years to come and Martin Ennis would like CUMS to be able to use them]

JW thanked SF for his work on the long-term planning document. He wants to keep the discussion going and invited any further comments. We need to think, discuss and keep talking. It was agreed that SF needs to draft a document to enable us to be part of the 800^th celebrations. We'll communicate with the society, but won't make people anxious.

CS, in response to a comment about the extra organisational time that this is likely to take, said that she was willing to invest as much time as it took to carry it through.

6. Instrument Collection JH introduced this item by telling the committee that the root of the problem is the budget. Having done some research, he has found out that CUMS is the only University Musical Society in the country with such a collection. It's suffered from recent neglect and we've relied on the income to spend on other things. JH will only be able to be responsible for its welfare if we spend enough on it to keep it all in good order. £5,500 is the minimum. (TL spent at least £6,000 per year plus new purchases). JW clarified that JH was seeking £4,000 plus £1,500 for depreciation, and said that he thought we should do that).

CP asked if the Societies Syndicate offer was fixed for 5 years. (SF: they gave us a lump sum instead of an annual sum, as requested. So we can re-apply when we want to)

CS agrees with JH - the crucial point is that we re-invest the income from the hires to the collection and therefore must seek more income from sponsors etc.

7. Convenor's reports were accepted with thanks, having been circulated before the meeting.

8. Dates for meetings next year MH was asked to send round a general birdcage for initial responses, having first established with the chairmen and conductor which days/times would be possible for them.

9. A.O.B. SF told the committee that he was trying to arrange an open meeting to discuss the music for the 800^th.