thanx for your note(s).

you got to experience “Ra?!” wow, i’m envious. i was just showing that score to a friend the other day. i would love to hear your impressions of that monumental opus someday.

Murray turned 77 earlier this month. he appears to still be quite active. his output is truly protean.

i brought Murray to Seattle in 1990 and UVic in 1996 for several concerts & workshops. during his Seattle residency, the Purcell SQ played his first 5 quartets. you are quite right, they are gorgeous.

oh, Charles, i have scores of SQs 1-3 (#2 is my fave) and CDs of SQs 1-5. i believe he is now up to #11.

a great resource for Schafer’s music, CDs & books on music education (the best i’ve ever encountered) is http://www.patria.org/

the man is a unique genius.

cheers,

bob

I remember one of Murray’s largest pieces that involved multiple choirs, orchestral and constructed instruments he’d put together out of farm machinery in his barn and – if I remember correctly – about 8 conductors, each with an assistant with a stop watch. And I spent a night at the Science Centre participating in the overnight experience that was Ra. His quartets are gorgeous. And as I’m sure you know, he is or was deeply involved with music education. He’s a great composer. I don’t know if Carlos knows his works but I’ll round up some CDs.

How old is he now? More than 80?

E

i had forgotten about your Toronto connections. of course, you are abundantly familiar with R. Murray Schafer.

to my ear, mind & spirit, Schafer is one of THE very greatest living artists in any field. i’ve always thought it a great shame – and loss to U.S. audiences – that his work seems to be be so rarely performed outside of Canada.

do you think there is a chance that Carlos might be interested in one of his many brilliant works?

i am in-touch with Murray and will be happy to help out if there is an opportunity to mount one of his pieces and/or bring him to town.

I read David Stabler and Barry Johnson’s discussion yesterday, and Barry’s original blog post which now has nine serious comments/responses. And I’ve shared them – and will share your articles – with Martha Richards, executive director of the Miller Foundation. (I don’t think it’s a secret that the Foundation is insisting on balanced budgets as a prerequisite for their continued significant support of Portland’s five major arts organizations. Martha and her trustees are tremendously supportive of our work, but they believe we must scale our activities to match our community’s willingness to support them.) I also read Michael Kaiser’s book a while ago, and went to hear him speak in May at Portland Center Stage.

There’s a lot that could and is being said about the short- and long-term wisdom of the cuts that our companies are making. I think there are some major distinctions to be made, though.

Portland Opera has cut one mainstage production from its season, in addition to taking furlough days, salary freezes and so on. I’ve run a major opera company (Canadian Opera in Toronto) and I know first-hand the grim economics of opera, in which the more you produce, the more you lose. (Theatre companies can extend successful productions and actually make money; an additional performance of a sold-out opera just adds to the loss.) So I sympathize with their decision, although Michael Kaiser and Barry Johnson would both undoubtedly say they are starting on a downward spiral.

We haven’t done that at the Symphony. We continue to invest in our audiences, as must be evident from our brochure. We are shifting the mix of performances and trying to better balance performance supply with audience demand, without compromising our core commitment to the classical subscription series of 16 programs. And we have cut our marketing expenditures although I’m convinced we’re doing so shrewdly. (Who was it who said that 50% of all marketing expenditures are a waste of money but the problem is, you don’t know which 50%?) The Carnegie trip has captured public imagination and shows every sign not only of paying for itself, but contributing to the overhead costs involved as well. And that’s a big increase to our operating budget at a difficult time.

But the cuts to staff and orchestra size, furlough days, wage freezes, shortened season, reduced/eliminated pension and parking contributions and changes to the health insurance plans are saving an enormous amount of money, and I’d describe this as increasing our internal subsidy of the company during a period when the external subsidies have been reduced. Michael Kaiser might call it “squeezing the nickel” but I’d disagree. It’s an expression of our collective commitment to this orchestra and yes, to our jobs and families. It’s something we agreed was necessary during the toughest economic time any of us has experienced. Given the much greater pain other people in this country are experiencing I think it’s unwise (immoral?) to grumble. But we are now collectively providing a subsidy of approximately the same size as the Miller Foundation’s generous $1 million annual grant. I hope we can soon get back to healthy levels of earned and contributed income, so we can stop depending on our musicians and staff to balance the budget.