Over at Sticks and Drones (via Adaptistration) conductor Bill Eddins
raises a challenge about the tricky business of naming concerts for marketing purposes. His example cites an interesting and attractive American program saddled with the bland moniker "Jazz Masters". Not only quite meaningless but at odds with his conception, which seems not have been sought or heeded when the title was devised.
It's not always this bad — in my own
experience those involved in artistic planning have had varying degrees of say or influence (or at the very least a power of veto) with these kinds of
marketing decisions, and in turn marketing staff have had a rather more
consultative relationship with the artistic planners. (It's Australia, so these tend to be questions for the artistic administrators who shape the seasons rather than the 12-weeks-a-year chief conductors.) Inevitably there's
some battle-picking and instances where a planner or a marketer chooses
to bow to the "other side" against gut instinct or better judgement –
and there are always instances where either side can be shown to have been "right" or
"wrong" in that call. Regardless, both would acknowledge that the naming of concerts isn't just one of your holiday games.
But the post leaves one big question unanswered:
What would Bill Eddins have called his program?
Comments
The naming of concerts is a difficult matter
Over at Sticks and Drones (via Adaptistration) conductor Bill Eddins
raises a challenge about the tricky business of naming concerts for marketing purposes. His example cites an interesting and attractive American program saddled with the bland moniker "Jazz Masters". Not only quite meaningless but at odds with his conception, which seems not have been sought or heeded when the title was devised.
It's not always this bad — in my own
experience those involved in artistic planning have had varying degrees of say or influence (or at the very least a power of veto) with these kinds of
marketing decisions, and in turn marketing staff have had a rather more
consultative relationship with the artistic planners. (It's Australia, so these tend to be questions for the artistic administrators who shape the seasons rather than the 12-weeks-a-year chief conductors.) Inevitably there's
some battle-picking and instances where a planner or a marketer chooses
to bow to the "other side" against gut instinct or better judgement –
and there are always instances where either side can be shown to have been "right" or
"wrong" in that call. Regardless, both would acknowledge that the naming of concerts isn't just one of your holiday games.
But the post leaves one big question unanswered:
What would Bill Eddins have called his program?
Over at Sticks and Drones (via Adaptistration) conductor Bill Eddins raises a challenge about the tricky business of naming concerts for marketing purposes. His example cites an interesting and attractive American program saddled with the bland moniker "Jazz Masters". Not only quite meaningless but at odds with his conception, which seems not have been sought or heeded when the title was devised.
It's not always this bad — in my own experience those involved in artistic planning have had varying degrees of say or influence (or at the very least a power of veto) with these kinds of marketing decisions, and in turn marketing staff have had a rather more consultative relationship with the artistic planners. (It's Australia, so these tend to be questions for the artistic administrators who shape the seasons rather than the 12-weeks-a-year chief conductors.) Inevitably there's some battle-picking and instances where a planner or a marketer chooses to bow to the "other side" against gut instinct or better judgement – and there are always instances where either side can be shown to have been "right" or "wrong" in that call. Regardless, both would acknowledge that the naming of concerts isn't just one of your holiday games.
But the post leaves one big question unanswered:
What would Bill Eddins have called his program?