CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY MUSICAL SOCIETY
Away Day 19 November 2011, 10.00 – 13.00
Wolfson College Cambridge
Present: Richard Andrewes (RA), Jon Dumbrill (JD), Maggie Heywood (MH), Chris Lawrence (CL), Paul Nicholson (PN), Rachel Thomas (RT), Jo Whitehead (JW), Sarah Yetman (SY).
Simon Fairclough (SF) was in the Chair. Christine Skeen took notes.
Apologies were received from Alan Bowman, Stephen Cleobury, Chloe Davidson (CD), Caroline Goulder, Nia Llewelyn Jones, John Willan
The aim of the day was to discuss the strategy paper presented by the Faculty of Music and CUMS, with particular regard to the creation of a Centre for Musical Performance (CMP). CUMS would need to work closely with the Faculty to submit to the university through the Faculty and School of Arts and Humanities a proposal to have the Centre included in the next fundraising campaign.
There is a strong logic to offering music as part of university education in the same way as some other universities do, especially with increased fees meaning students may well choose to go elsewhere offering more than Cambridge currently does. The next fundraising campaign would be launched in a few months' time and it was crucial to urge that a considerable sum be allotted to music funding. SF asked for any comments, going round the table.
PN made three points:
he was delighted to see arts managers mentioned in the paper
he was concerned that at the end of the paper mention was made that CUMS in its old form could be wound down
he wondered how colleges would be involved in the plan.
CL suggested we think of two versions of CMP, the physical building and the concept. If lack of funds prevented building change, planning on the concept should go ahead because money spent on central administration would achieve much. SF replied that
the fundraising campaign was likely to be capital-focussed
the university had a master plan for the Sidgwick site as well as plans to demolish the old house at 11 West Road
there was already approval from Arts & Humanities for the master plan and if the house demolition couldn't be afforded as well, we should have our own plan to go ahead anyway.
CL said we needed to make the choice of Cambridge compelling, using effective marketing rather than word of mouth. JB confirmed that most musicians did know one another, but it was purposeful rather than accidental.
SY made four points:
she wondered how much sharing of CMP would be done between the music department and Faculty
CUMS lunchtime concerts provided a valuable platform for players of varying levels of skill to perform. SF suggested a piano might be placed in a corner of the concert hall foyer to open up more informal opportunities.
A body was needed to support students in their wishes. SF quoted the ADC model for administration being run by recent graduates which retained the student ethos. He suggested that this in turn could be supported by more experienced or professionally skilled people. RT and JW said the aims were different between the ADC and musicians. The ADC can offer a venue to any student, but in performance music it is necessary to focus on a few ensembles – which creates some tensions
PN and JD said more opportunities were needed for student conductors.
SF summarised; support for a range of skill levels was desirable, as found in the USA, such as providing opportunities for learning to sing, taking a course before joining a group. The same could be done for instrumental coaching. JD said the entry level need only be the ability to read music. JW said this would have to be arranged at college level and CL warned that colleges were very protective of their independence. JD said he was asked at Freshers' Fair whether CUMS provided a body of music teachers. JW replied that we did not currently have the resources. SF and RT wondered where people do actually find teachers. PN pointed out that highly-skilled musicians liked to choose their own teachers. CL said that if the university hired a teacher for a master class, for instance, it could pay for the students. JW said a demand was identified and there was a role for us to play in co-ordinating. The problem often lay in finding a place in which to teach. SF said the Faculty were not always able to help as they might like to e.g. in not allowing double basses to be left at West Road. JD said two bass players were considering not playing because of the difficulty of shifting instruments. A centre could provide ample practice rooms.
RT said the collegiate system was unique and valuable but more focus was needed on the Faculty and CUMS for a central role in organisation, co-ordination and helping co-operation. CL gave the example of the 800th anniversary celebrations across the university, and composers' anniversary celebrations.
JD suggested finding a system for putting chamber musicians in touch with one another; it was sometimes hard to find say, a quartet in which to play. MH said the Music Club used to run such a list people could sign up to. JW suggested we see if this was something we could do.
MH expressd concern that if SF and JW left CUMS at the same time, the plan envisaged in this paper would be vulnerable. JW said that he was not planning to leave: if the plan proceeded we needed to get interim funds to pay for someone to take it forward. £20-50k would make a big difference to getting the plan on the road. We needed to present a plan for say, 5 years to encourage donations.
Part 2: The Vision
JD raised a point about student involvement pointed out that CUMSSO (ex-CUMS I) was still largely run by CD. CUWO and CUCO were more independent. He said there was a risk of alienating students with non-student involvement. Action: JW suggested JD, CD and JW discuss how to lessen CD's workload with CUSO. RT thought a recent graduate was ideal – they could afford the time involved but still had a connection.
CL suggested we keep doing what we do currently plus master classes and more for conductors and composers.
SF asked about opera. RA explained that to date these have been undergraduate projects under the guidance of a senior committee, and of variable standard. SF asked what different approach should be taken with a new co-ordinating board. What would be the most useful aspect to CUOS of the models of CUCO, CUSO, CUCON and CUWO, or being given a grant with advice? The model would need to be clear especially when involving a large-scale body.
SF asked about jazz. PN said it was not driven in the same way as classical music. JD said ideally it should be student-led, but someone to talk to was desirable too. SF said a soundproof room and drumkit were needed. JD suggested asking those involved what ideally they would like.
SF suggested free screenings for students of performances by first class musicians, e.g. Metropolitan Opera.
SF spoke about governance. Any proposed funding for the centre must go through the School of Arts & Humanities from the Faculty which means we must co-operate with the Faculty. Ultimately the new centre was intended to fall under the Faculty's umbrella. It was therefore important that it have ring-fenced money. Submission of the proposal would be in February so clear ideas were needed soon. CL asked whether the concert hall would become part of the centre. JW replied that this had not been discussed; it was independently managed, and a subsidy for running it would be needed. CL said that if practice rooms were discussed the hall should be too. There were better experiences for players rehearsing in the hall. Ideally, the university should be given priority use of the concert hall in term time.
JW discussed the CMP. He would propose an independent board for overseeing it. If the building were paid for, as opposed to renting, the CMP would pay for building services. PN thought complete independence was desirable. RT asked whether complete independence would look odd when selling the attractions of the centre to students – they might question its connection with the university. RA explained that despite its independence, it would seek to work with the Faculty but not in day to day running, not being equipped for management. JW said we needed clarification of funding for university and concert hall use.
Part 3: The Roadmap
There was discussion of the high and the low road in the paper.
JW summarised that we needed someone to take over from SF. The initial aim was to keep doing what we are now. The Chairman's job specification was
planning
fundraising
'firefighting'
overseeing ensembles
encouraging all ensembles to have senior advisors e.g. Martin Yates, Maggie Heywood to act as go-betweens . CUWO and the Choir of Choirs each needed one. An artistic committee would be a useful network
SF said we should list people we needed including actual candidates and those who might know of them. JW suggested a group of three to do this. He said we may not get a chairman with as many qualities and dedication as SF, and so must put people around them to support them, or provide ensembles with senior members or an artistic committee. SF pointed out that one person sometimes needs to act, eg. talking to a visiting conductor.
It was proposed that
we look for a volunteer
we acquire a professional fundraiser costing £10-15k, to raise money to hire an executive director for 3-5-years for £50-100k pa. who would work alongside the volunteer
It needed clarifying by a committee, and reserves would need drawing down from the CUMS Fund to hire the fundraiser. By the end of this academic year we should have a clear idea of how we would work with the Faculty.