Failure and frustration at the National Music Foundation
by Seth Rogovoy

(WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. Sept . 3, 1998) -- Taken individually and in isolation, the concerts at the National Music Foundation this summer were a mixed bag . Some were artistic successes, others were not. Some did well at the box office, most did not. In general, in the concert business, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

The kickoff show by the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra was the surprise hit of the season. The group, led by trumpeter/composer Wynton Marsalis, played a lively, dynamic program that had more people dancing in the aisles than did a few weeks later to the Mavericks, whose innovative, retro-lounge pop experiments that sound so good on record fell flat in concert.

Other shows, including those by the David Grisman Quintet and Sonny Rollins, were good displays of genius and virtuosity by masters of their respective crafts, if somewhat lacking in inspiration.

It isn’t so much what the foundation did in bringing interesting, talented performers to Lenox, but rather what it did not do, which made its most ambitious summer season so far a frustrating failure.

Officials at the foundation rightly lament a number of factors making the task of presenting shows at their facilities difficult. For one, in the music industry the Berkshires are considered, rightly or wrongly, a tertiary market, meaning that given the choice, hot touring acts are more likely to perform at venues elsewhere, in primary or secondary markets.

The size of the 1,200-seat Berkshire Performing Arts Theatre saddles the foundation with an odd duck -- too large for club-size acts, too small for acts that play the standard 2,000-3,000 seat auditoriums and theaters. The opening of the smaller, 500-seat Center Theatre this summer begins to address this problem at the lower end, but the foundation still faces an uphill battle in getting acts whose fees require a greater carrying capacity than that provided by BPAT.

Given all this, however, it is still immensely frustrating to sit back and watch, year after year, as the foundation fails to show any sign of vision or focus in its programming. Precisely because of the factors mitigating against the ability of NMF to present successfully a standard-type concert series, some sort of creativity is needed in the programming and marketing of concerts at the foundation.

In some way, the programming at the NMF should be a coherent reflection of the foundation’s overall mission. Up until now, the only such efforts that have been made along these lines are fuzzy-headed appeals to “celebrating American music in all its variety” -- a catch-all, lame excuse justifying just about any booking the organization was lucky enough to get.

The problem is, aside from the repetitious mantra “to preserve and perpetuate American music” -- as if it was in any danger of disappearing! -- there doesn’t seem to be any coherent vision about the concert series or the organization itself. What is unique or different about the concertgoing experience at the NMF that, outside of catching a favorite performer, would make anyone want to go to hear live music there? The Iron Horse in Northampton has ambiance and food, the Troy (N.Y.) Savings Bank Music Hall has history and marvelous acoustics, the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown has intimacy and comfort, and all of them boast only top-quality acts at competitive prices.

The NMF has to figure out something to distinguish itself from the run-of-the-mill concert venue, and at this point, that’s all it is -- and very run-of-the-mill at that in relation to its regional competitors. The problem is -- and this is not unique to the NMF, but an affliction shared by several organizations that present popular music in the Berkshires -- after a series of unrelated concerts is booked, no effort is made to make anything more of it than a series of ad-hoc events.

There is no feeling of a “series” at all, in fact -- nothing ties the shows together. There is no effort to “curate” the shows, individually or collectively. Without any curatorial vision, the foundation’s identity itself remains elusive. And without a clear, strong identity, the NMF cannot rely on an audience to return to the venue itself, as is the case with Tanglewood or any of the above-mentioned institutions, all of which have successfully “branded” themselves with a clear image or identity as strong or stronger than any individual performer it presents.

The NMF has a lot of work to do to make the act of going to hear music at its campus an event of cultural import. As it stands now, while not an entirely unpleasant activity, going to hear music there leaves a lot to be desired. From the moment visitors arrive, they are met with obstacles to their enjoyment. From the pothole-strewn, chaotic parking lots to the characterless, rusty lobby to the dirty, smelly bathrooms that never seem to be cleaned, there is a lack of care or pride in the concert facility -- as opposed to Springlawn, the residential mansion with its multi-thousand dollar renovation -- that extends to the cheap and tacky manner in which the shows themselves are presented, as if they are high-school assemblies and the concertgoers are schoolchildren.

Not all is desolate. The concert hall itself is attractive and comfortable, with padded seats, air-conditioning and sight-lines that foster intimacy between performer and the audience. That characteristic alone is something to work with, to build upon and to take advantage of conceptually. Instead of bemoaning what the venue is not, let function follow form in this case, much as the recently-celebrated Music Inn evolved from the ‘50s through the ‘70s as a kind of logical fullfilment of its own architecture.

The ultimate irony is that the National Music Foundation need not look further than its own mission statement for a vision or purpose upon which to build. What it does need to do, however, is to find a way to reflect that mission in its programming and the way shows are presented -- in a sense, to start acting like a National Music Foundation, and not an amateur or semi-pro concert promoter.

There has got to be a better way to build an audience and an institution. Sure, this is all new. But novelty is no excuse for lack of imagination. In fact, the word “novelty” implies something new and innovative, which is exactly what the NMF needs to be. If the only expectation is to be another concert venue, then the officials should just rent out the hall to a commercial promoter who will negotiate better deals with booking agents and do a much better job at promoting concerts, with no risk to the foundation.

But I don’t think that is the direction in which the foundation wants to or should go. I still believe that a National Music Foundation in Lenox has the potential to be a dynamic, leading cultural institution with a vision and identity of its own. The only question is, where is that vision? Where is that identity? Where is the leadership? Who is going to crystallize that vision and that identity so that the project can move forward in a bold, dynamic and original manner, with the confidence necessary to inspire support here in the Berkshires and throughout the nation and the world, so that some day the NMF might take its place alongside Tanglewood, Jacob’s Pillow, the Rockwell, the Clark, Shakespeare and Company, The Mount and the Berkshire and Williamstown theater festivals as another cornerstone of the cultural Berkshires?

[This column originally appeared in the Berkshire Eagle on September 3, 1998. Copyright Seth Rogovoy 1998. All rights reserved.]