CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY MUSICAL SOCIETY

A Committee Meeting was held on 23 April 2008 at 1 pm in Lecture Room 4 in the Music School West Road

Present

Executive Officers: Mark Austin (MA), Rachel Croft (RC), Lizzie Davis (LD), Martin Ennis (ME), Chris Ford (CF), Brandon Green (BG), Dan Hill (DH), Emily Taylor (ET)

Co-opted members: Richard Andrewes (RA), Simon Fairclough (SF), Caroline Goulder (CG), Chris Lawrence (CL), Paul Nicholson (PN), Claire Pike (CP), Jo Whitehead (JW)

Nick Shaw attended as an observer.

Christine Skeen took the minutes.

1. Apologies were received from Stephen Cleobury, Joseph Fort, Maggie Heywood, Theodore Hong, Jennifer Howells, Michael Sharp

2. Minutes & matters arising: The minutes of 7 March meeting were approved with some amendments having been made.

Matters arising item 8b: RC said the name CUWO had been chosen by Zephyr.

'08/09 Programme & budget:

SF said £8-10k sponsorship from Cambridge Water had been confirmed for the Water Concert in March '09.

Up to £5k for orchestral coaching had been applied for from the Donald Wort Fund.

An application was being made to the PRS Foundation towards the Peter Maxwell Davis composition, which was costing CUMS £15k plus VAT.

The remaining programme would be dealt with at the next meeting.

3. CUMS I report: SF summarised DH's report as highlighting

(i) the need for better string players

(ii) the aim for more student involvement

(iii) the expectation of good attendance and discipline

(iv) player turnover

He made six proposals:

There was general discussion of the paper. DH added his view that also appointing wind players on an ad hoc concert basis rather than yearly would bring about greater commitment.

(i) better strings: discussion followed about the number of desks. JW said that MH considered that reducing the number of strings players would improve the standard. MA agreed, adding that the current standard with 8-9 desks was higher than when they started out with 10. CL said the important factor was to maintain a balance; it needed to be considered on a termly basis with regard to the programme. RA questioned the concept that good players were needed for a particular concert rather than all the time. SF suggested that SC might be asked to decide upon the number of desks.

(ii) student involvement: CP observed that DH's successor might not be able to be as involved as DH, therefore more volunteers were necessary. CL said greater commitment was created when students were involved with running their own activities. In answer to a question about what “student involvement” meant, JW made several points:

BG thought a student's drive to do something came from an innate desire rather than responsibilities or incentives. SF told members that Queens College choir members each had an individual responsibility, however small. ET said the involvement of students (as opposed to senior members) was important in attracting students to ensembles. RC said Zephyr found that organising themselves was the best way. SF pointed out that a non-student administrator was able to plan on a long-term as opposed to yearly basis. JW would like to see a few key administrative tasks taken on by students, anything extra that could be achieved being a bonus. CL suggested each principal might have a list of tasks to be allotted. MA offered to pursue some useful informal conversations he had had along theses lines recently, in view of his conducting CUMS I next year. The meeting agreed. Action: MA

(iii) attendance: although commitment was vital to work with conductors like Norrington and Davis, DH expressed concern that although large expensive projects were planned, CUMS I was not a professional orchestra and however willing, could not always commit. Discussion followed on how to achieve commitment. PN suggested a cut-off date after which permission had to be sought to miss a rehearsal. JW suggested the Chorus model of no more than two missed rehearsals. SF suggested setting out a required timetable for a concert, and signing up to it only if it could be adhered to.

Frequency of rehearsal was discussed. Intensive rehearsal for the Verdi and Turangalila concerts had brought great rewards, but at a considerable cost to other aspects of some players' lives.

CL suggested a survey of players' views on weekly as opposed to intensive rehearsals.

The idea of appointing principal strings before the summer holidays was welcomed.

RC thought that booking players concert by concert would be time consuming.

SF said he saw two options: having a pool of players and going through the lists which was time consuming (unattractive), or presenting a concert schedule with the expectation of full attendance, those unable to commit thereby identifying gaps in sections which could then be filled (attractive).

He wondered how players from other orchestras could be found. JW said a way was needed to identify good players, from CUCO for example. RA suggested writing to ask that if available they might wish to play in a particular concert. ET suggested having a section on the audition form to indicate their willingness. MA said this system was already proposed for the Mahler 8.

RC asked whether anyone read the 'past experience' section on audition forms - some ran to 2 or 3 pages. CL said it was useful information. Regarding administration, MA would prepare a list of interested volunteers. Action: MA

Intensive rehearsal was favourably viewed, but discussion would be left to a future date.

PN said uniformity of bow markings was important and a rehearsal of the string principals to establish these should precede all others. All were agreed on integrating social with orchestral activities.

4. Process for appointing orchestral manager for 2008/09: JW pointed out that the new manager would need to oversee all the issues discussed. There had been 4 or 5 applicants. The deadline for applications was 1 May. Interviews would take place in the week of 12 May by a representative sample of the main committee. It was proposed by SF, seconded by ME, that no more than 5 members representing the committee should conduct the interviews, volunteers to contact SF.

5. Establishment of CUMS Advisory Council/CUMS vision statement: SF and JW had had talks with Suzy Digby, wife of the Master of Queens, who was keen to be involved with CUMS. It was proposed to set up a group from within and without the University with useful social and financial connections, to take the Society forward and build on a foundation to grow past SC's retirement, meeting maybe every 6 months for 2 years. This committee would take them its vision statement to discuss, seen as

RC said conductors and composers should be included in this. The meeting agreed with the vision statement and that SF and JW should continue with the Advisory Council talks. Action:SF, JW

Replying to RA, JW said a broad, long term vision of the society's future rather than specific events would be discussed by the Advisory Council.

6. Report on investment strategy meeting: CL said Alan Findlay was to start looking after the investment fund, and SF asked him to speak to Alan Findlay about joining the trustees. Action: CL

7. Personnel: JW introduced Nick Shaw. It was planned for him to work with CF. JW said new people were still needed for various tasks and names would be welcomed. RC mentioned publicity as requiring a large amount of input and JW hoped that with increased numbers of volunteers, new ventures such press releases could be carried out.

8. AOB: CP reminded members of the Annual Dinner on May 3.

The meeting closed at 2.15 pm