CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSTIY MUSICAL SOCIETY

A Committee Meeting was held on 9 June 2010 at 1 pm in Seminar Room 1 in the Keynes Building, King's College.

Present

Executive Officers: Richard Andrewes (RA), Fiona Beresford (FB), Andrew Browning (AB), Stephen Cleobury (SC), Stephen Craigen (SCr), Chloe Davidson (CD), Martin Ennis (ME), Yiman Ge (YG), Caroline Goulder (CG), Maggie Heywood (MH), Jennifer Howells (JH), Harry Ogg (HO), Nick Shaw (NS), Simon Smart (SS),  Emma Smith (ES), Angie White (AW)

Co-opted members: Simon Fairclough (SF), Chris Lawrence (CL), Paul Nicholson (PN), Jo Whitehead (JW), John Willan (JWi)

Simon Fairclough was in the Chair. Christine Skeen took the minutes.

1.  Minutes of the last two meetings were agreed with the listing of Andrew Browning's name being made under 'Executive Officers'.

2.  Matters arising:  (5 Mar 2010) '7. Update from Development Committee': out of six colleges, SF had received a reply from Caius.  SC pointed out that in programme listings of supporting colleges, King's should be included.  Action: CD  CL added that we should be more aware of gifts in kind.  SC, SF, PN spoke of Trinity's role with regard to the Vaughan Williams concert.  SC said he would handle this.  Action: SC

(30 April 2010) '3. Proposal on fundraising & marketing management next year': CD said candidates were  being interviewed the following Tuesday. [This was to be discussed later]

(The order of the agenda was altered)

3.  Update on CUCO:  AB reported that it was hoped to elect their president over the following weekend. The president would be guaranteed a place in the orchestra. Other places would be filled in October.  AB was to be in Cambridge next year and willing to be involved in the lunchtime concerts.

4.  Lunchtime Concerts: CL was shortly to see three students interested in being involved. He welcomed any views on them if committee members requested their names from him. Replying to NS, CL said in the worst case scenario the first series would have a £1406 deficit.

5.  CUMS I: CD said the position of president had yet to be filled. HO thought the position for CUMS I president was very different from CUCO.  Further discussion would take place outside the meeting.  Action: CD, HO

6.  Chorus: CG said a new committee had been elected in February, comprising chorus manager, assistant librarian and registrar, plus around ten helpers for ad hoc situations.

7.  Update on programming committee: JW had nothing further to report.  SCr had had some discussion with a concerto competition winner who was not aware of the position.  JH had been in touch to make sure everything was made plain. Action: JH to re-confirm the position

8.  Plan from CUMS II for 2010-11: ES had submitted a paper immediately before the meeting.  She had not spoken to JW for advice because a new convenor had not been found. She said the May concert went well.   However YG was the only new committee member to have come forward - earlier that day.  The current members, herself  included, were all leaving or not playing for various reasons. Regarding admissions to the orchestra, it was intended to keep string players with good attendance records.  Wind players would continue to be audition-only. NS pointed out that CUMS II had not planned much of its budget.  He asked that ES check the accuracy of the figures and let him know.     Action ES, NS    CL  said that ES had had little support from other members of the orchestra this year, leading to a questionnable future for CUMS II if this did not improve.  SS thought that although CUMS  II showed less commitment, the keener players tending to go to CUMS I, nevertheless there were many willing to play in CUMS II.  CL said next year there should be a proper review with a formal timetable of milestones to be reached.  SF pointed out that that had been the intention to bring to the current meeting.  MH spoke in favour of CUMS II; it offered three conductors opportunities to conduct concertos – but said that some players did not have the nerve to face auditioning.  She suggested making a waiting list for CUMS I players, so that CUMS II did not lose its best players early in the year.  It would be up to the new conductors to make it work.  The players were probably unaware that their future was in doubt although she and SF had talked to them. JW said there should be a successful CUMS II or not at all. He suggested they should not exist without a strong committee and could not go ahead without a plan.  HO suggested the difficulty of the music should be borne in mind and should not be too ambitious.  RA suggested all three conductors be involved in all three concerts to observe the orchestra's progress.  SC put forward the idea of a senior committee member acting as a liaison between CUMS II and the committee;  CUMS I was supported by CD, the chorus by CG and others, but CUMS II had no-one.  In the absence of anyone else,  MH volunteered.  JW suggested she do this for the Michaelmas term and then consider recruiting someone for the next term if necessary.  Action: MH .   SF summarised - we needed a mentor in place, at the heart of the committee, and a plan for next year.  SC said Martin Yates could advise on the programme content.  SF added that it was key for MY to get into one of the orchestra's rehearsals next term so as to make sure he had a good understanding of the quality of the orchestra.  He asked whether we could be confident that the programme could go ahead if it was included in the season brochure.  SS thought so, given the keenness of new entrants at the start of the year.  SF emphasised that branding was vital – people expected the same standard from ensembles in one brochure. JW suggested not including CUMS II in the brochure – pieces changed and it became meaningless.  CL said they should have a repertoire that they could manage well.

(ME left)

SF suggested and it was agreed that a note be placed in the brochure to the effect that 'on ...dates CUMS II would perform; watch the website for details'.  CD suggested placing a profile of each ensemble in the front of the brochure. 

Action CD

SC said that with advice from MartinYates on repertoire and help from a mentor, all the support systems would be in place.  SF said that after the first concert next season, there should be a review, in December.   Action SF, MH .  CL added that the next repertoire should not be chosen until it was seen how the first concert went. HO suggested naming the repertoire before auditions; RA pointed out that not having it in the brochure gave the public some idea of the ensemble's raison d'être.

(FB left)

9.  Plan from CUWO for 2010-11: SS spoke for Rachel Croft who had submitted a paper. CUWO had had a very successful last concert.  They had participated in the National Concert Band Festival for the second time and intended to do so again with the aim of reaching the finals, now it was known what sort of repertoire they needed to tailor to this.  They had a new committee, with two who are willing to come in next year.  It was hoped to get permanent sponsorship for the schools concerts which were popular and always full.  JW would like each ensemble to produce a similar document to CUWO's annually to ensure a shared understanding of aims and plans so that students could be left to run ensembles, knowing what was needed to be done.  SS pointed out that there must be continuity in a committee to carry a plan through. 

(SC and CG left)

Comments on ensemble plans should be made to JW.  Action: all

AB said he would be happy to bring CUCO's plan to the next meeting.  Action: AB

10.  Update on programming committee: JW had submitted a paper. Recent problems in coordinating concert calendars and programmes across ensembles had led to considering changes in the management of programming. SF said plans for 2012-13 and onwards could be discussed in October, the major concerts between now and then having now been agreed.   Until October any pressing issues would be dealt with by SF, JW and JWi.   JW should be informed of any which could not wait till October.  Action: all.   SS spoke of caution over lack of continuity with conductors particularly for CUWO.  JW suggested this could be covered at the conductor auditions in January/February.  SF said it was important to discuss it beforehand, at the November Away Day.   Action: SF for November.  MH pointed out that it had been some time since a conductor had worked with more than one orchestra; perhaps something to talk over with Martin Yates.

11.  Update on appointment of marketing & fundraising co-ordinator: CD and MH  were to interview four promising candidates for this new post the following Tuesday.  Three were Cambridge graduates, one St Andrew's.

12.  Update on meetings with Cambridge University Development Office, Faculty of Music, Jennifer Barnes (pro vice chancllor): SF and JW had nothing to report on their meeting with CUDO; SF had also spoken with the Faculty.  They were to see Jennifer Barnes in June; she was ex Dean of Trinity College of Music.  It was proposed to involve such senior figures more generally – to be discussed at the Away Day.  Action: SF for November.

13.  'Friendraising': JW explained that CUMS had the opportunity of a venue at the Handel House Museum, where he had a contact.  It was also a  fundraising opportunity.  The plan was to invite an initial twenty five people who in turn would bring more to future London events.  The tickets would be fairly highly priced, the event hopefully self-funding.  The playing opportunity would be for maybe two from the lunchtime recital series.  Comments on playing and fundraising should be made to JW.  Action: all.

14.  Formation of executive subcommittee to take care of any business arising over the summer: it was decided to form a group comprising SF, NS, CD, SS and maybe three or four others if necessary.  CL was willing to be co-opted. Action: SF, NS, CD, CL, SS

15.  Any other business:  AB was happy for CUCO to join forces on the CUMS website, but would want to be actively involved in editing.  CUWO website content should also be considered.  Action: CD, AB

The meeting closed at 14.15