Untitled

Executive Officers: John Barber (JB), Rachel Croft (RC), Chris Ford (CF), Joseph Fort (JF), Brandon Green (BG), Dan Hill (DH), Theodore Hong (TH), Jennifer Howells (JH)

1.Apologies: Mark Austin, Rosica Bates, Stephen Cleobury, Simon Fairclough, Mark Galtrey, Caroline Goulder, Claire Pike, Maggie Heywood.

3.Matters Arising: There was general discussion about the suggested next steps set out in JW's paper summarising conclusions reached at the meeting on 20 October which had been circulated to the committee. The ensemble groups would make proposals and report back some time next term. DH suggested that MA and JF should join the CUMS I group led by Simon Fairclough. Action: SF and DH to initiate the CUMS I group, involving the conductors and Stephen Cleobury. CG to be asked to lead chorus group, Zephyr to decide on who should lead their group

4.Artistic Leadership: Claire Pike had made it known that she hoped someone could be found for a role which lay between Principal Conductor and Artistic Director, someone who could combine administrative skills with musical knowledge and credibility.

Opening up the discussion, JF gave the example of Richard Dickens at Imperial College. He also put forward the idea of considering young people from conservatoires, although the advantage of having a Cambridge-based person was the greater ease of time and energy they could devote to the task.

DH favoured the idea of someone from outside Cambridge, for example David Hill (Bach Choir) who lived in Cambridge but travelled the country to conduct.

MG wondered why an Artistic Director could not also act as a figurehead - JW thought it may not be possible to attract someone able to give the required amount of time because of their position.

JB agreed with CP that it would be good to combine roles, an Artistic Director model who could both conduct and help the ensembles.

DH cited the example of Paul Nicholson (listed in JW's circulated 'Artistic Leadership of CUMS' paper), with many useful contacts.

MS raised the point about continuity for the Chorus; maybe a one- year term of one conductor, or a chorus master. Replying to BG, JW said SC currently conducted three concerts a year - would a new Principal Conductor do the same? A separate group needed to look at Chorus requirements.

JW summarised: someone was needed firstly with time and commitment. For candidates who had this critical requirement, we would also like them to have contacts, be able to be present and give hands-on musical advice, and if possible with attractive charisma. This ruled out the purely administrative type of candidate - and probably ruled out the very well known conductors.

Following on from this, it was generally agreed to try and find a range of candidates which would fit these criteria.

Action: JW and SF to identify & suggest candidates, proceed with discussions without committing the Society. JW asked for any advice on who or who not to approach, and how, to be made known to the committee. Action: all

5. Programme for 2008/09: JW introduced the programme, stating that the larger concerts were the main things to be discussed because these need to decided early; there was more flexibility with smaller ones arranged by student conductors. He then asked for comments. JB asked whether the Chorus might be involved in King's Autumn Festival. JF reminded the meeting of the CUCO model of concentrated rehearsal time, and that their concerts should be considered when programming. It was discussed whether we would have more chance of involving CUCO players if CUMS I rehearsed like CUCO in a concentrated rehearsal period but at a different time of the year. DH said also that CUMS II might rehearse twice, CUMS I, once a week. Action: DH to check to avoid date clashes with CUCO.

RA suggested using the University Baroque Ensemble for the Handel Oratorio, particularly as a Handel oratorio might not provide a good opportunity for many CUMS I members. JW pointed out that that would give no CUMS participation - although it would not be inconsistent with our goal of being a broader based university society. JH asked that any change be made known to her urgently as she was already in contact with Roy Goodman.

RA commented that doing La Mer in Kings was not a good musical choice due to the acoustic. JW said that this was required to obtain sponsorship for the concert, but that RA's point was noted.

DH put forward the idea of having a guest conductor for the first CUMS I concert of the year (8/11/08) with coaching beforehand. It would give the orchestra an enthusiastic and encouraging start to the year. JW agreed that this was an interesting idea. Even if this was not suitable (e.g., because of the short time available before the first concert) some sort of special feature would be worth thinking about - such as coaching.

JW said that the Peter Maxwell Davis and Mahler 8 concerts were going to be financially draining, and some sponsorship was sought. There was some doubt over the date for the Mahler; 21^st or 28^th.

A date was to be added to Lent Term 2010, 27 February or 13 March. JH said she knew of a violinist/conductor who was keen to come.

Regarding the May Week 2010 concert, JW said SF felt that Sir Roger Norrington might not be keen to conduct the Chorus. If CUMS was to attract well known conductors, it would probably have to be more flexible in order to accommodate their wishes. This meant finding a different type of event in Easter term for the chorus. However, this should be seen in the context of the broader programme for the chorus - which has not yet been laid out. He asked for views - there were not any major objections.

CF wondered how the separate concerts were fixed, drawing upon the same audiences/ticket money. JW said a big choral concert could probably be done in Lent Term, choral concerts probably attracting largely town audiences.

6.Date for the AGM: this was fixed for 12 February 2008. JW explained that it had been set as late as possible to refine findings before presenting them to the Society.