Also visit Canterbury Heritage for another perspective. This blog, like the previous one, will be of general interest to anyone who is keen on learning more about some of the more obscure aspects of Canterbury history.
Some strongly expressed opinions against the Music School proposal can be found on Against the Current.
29 comments:
'Some strongly expressed opinions ''
are indeed to be found in that remarkable website of an old socialist.But one does not have to look that far:
the SOAC have advertised in the Press some time ago and referred to the School of Music as :''cash stripped students''
who would not make any difference to the town centre.
This truly intelligent view on musical education goes well together with the above website.
But the SOAC seem to have lost any connection with reality as they are now ,against the findings of the attorney general,continue to sue the Arts Centre trust board.
If they loose (and thats more than likely) whom will they blame then ? I am sure there will be enough candidates.
Who are these people on the Arts Centre Trust Board, how many of them are there? Who appointed them,when, what is their background? I'd be interested if anyone knows something about them.
There is some info here:
http://www.artscentre.org.nz/about-us/Management-Personnel.asp
but I guess there must be more around.
Nobody on SOAC is opposed to music education. Anonymous seems to deliberately overlook the fact that a great many prominent musical educators were opposed to the project at the Council consultative hearings on funding, including the Civic Music Council, which represents the majority of musical educators within the city. SOAC would welcome more use of the Great Hall for concerts - what we do not want is a building which compromises the heritage values of the Arts Centre.
It is not SOAC which has lost touch with reality but the promoters of this project, who are willing to pursue it at any cost and against the wishes of the majority of citizens, when a new building could already underway at Ilam.
What are the Arts Centre Board and Director thinking in getting a private investigator to search for their leaked papers / ‘investment’? The Board has a responsibility of stewardship that implicitly has transparency as a core value. It is not a private enterprise whose owners are undertaking commercial activities, it a group of individuals who have the privilege of being responsible for a foundational part of Christchurch.
What makes the matter even odder, is that they are aware that the matter is going to the High Court. A quick review of other high-profile cases where public boards have been in court would reveal that being up front at the start is infinitely wiser than waiting for court ordered disclosure before the public and media.
I repeat this: the defamatory ad the SOAC has placed in the Press ridiculing the music students and reducing them to a group of "cash stripped" individuals showed what the SOAC thinks of the school of music and of music education.
The opposition from the Christchurch celebrities of music does not stand up against the fact that prominent and internationally acclaimed performers
such as Melvina Major and Michael Endres are supporting the idea. Most European colleges are centrally located as only there one can generate audiences which forms a crucial part of any music training.
Ignoring that is not an act of wisdom.
The Civic Music Council should look abroad (or actually just into Wellington or Auckland ) and try to grasp the concept of a succesful school of music in tertiary education instead of making ignorant statements.
I ask people that I come into contact during the day about what they think about the proposed development at the Arts Centre. Its important to me they give an unbiased view, so I don't try to influence what they say; they don't know my view beforehand. I want to try and get a handle on what the views are in the wider Christchurch community over this issue. To my surprise everyone I have spoken to is against this development, I have yet to find anyone supporting it. These people come from a wide cross-section of Christchurch people. No one seems against a Music School (who would be?) but they are all opposed to it at the Arts Centre site. Surprising too is the opinion some people seem to express about Bob Parker. As someone who voted for him at the last election (and who even had his election placard on my front gate!) it is very disappointing to see how his support in Christchurch seem to be eroding over this issue. I don't know if my experience is typical and wonder if others are finding the same views expressed as I am?
My experience is similar to Early Canterbury Photography. It is difficult to find supporters of the proposal.
A number of alternative city locations have been suggested for the Music School by opponents of the Arts Centre site, but the university has made it plain it is not interested in any other location. Despite claims that the University wishes to help revitalize the city, suggestions of a location in the vicinity of CPIT jazz School have been dismissed as derelict and unsuited to the University's image. It clearly has a very selective idea about revitalization.
One further point: the support of Dame Malvina Major is claimed. I have never seen or heard her express a view in support anywhere in the media. i would be interested to be directed to the locations of such statements.
The UC has a very good idea where the most advantegous location for the new school of music is and naturally it is focussing on that one.It is not possible to make submissions or planning applications for several sites simulteanously. That the SOAC doesn't agree with their decision does not automatically disqualify it.
Dame Malvina Major:
I am not her press agent,but I read her statement in the listener a while ago and here it is:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Lbpbkyj7-TsJ:www.listener.co.nz/issue/3618/features/13964/a_tale_of_two_architects.html+malvina+major+support+conservatorium&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz
Recently there was an extensive feature of her in the magazine Latitude (issue 10) in which she distinctly and clearly supports the new building in a more elaborated way.
http://www.latitudemagazine.co.nz/cms/
Recently there was a function held at the SOFA gallery with musical performances for the supporters of the project and she sang beautifully.
Canterbury photographer claims he has never met anybody who supoorts the new school of music building . An unbiased finding indeed.And what a surprise it was for all.Well done.
I agree with heritage Alert that the University seems to have a onesided approach to this,the Arts centre as the only possible venue.And whether that proposed building is suitable is at least questionable.In my opinion it is not suitable.
I do agree with Anonymous though that the impression one gets with SOAC is that they seem to have a negative attitude towards music students,that Ad in the press was an insult and did not help the cause.
An integrated solution,comprising also other musical institutions would have been a far better option,but reason does not prevail in this town.The University seems to act only for themselves and the SOAC followers,(reading their followers letters in the PRESS )don't come across as clearheaded and reasonable.Instead anybody of the opposite side gets attacked and insulted.
Now the courts will decide,at great cost,and divisions will stay within the city for years to come.
I have finally located a copy of the advertisement which Anonymous and Peter take exception to. The term used was debt laden, which I think is a reasonably accurate description of the financial status of the majority of students ( music or otherwise) in this country. It is a simple fact that most students are now forced to fund their university studies with student loans. The advertisement, which was not in the name of SOAC alone, was intended to counter the extravagant claims which were being made for the economic boost the proposal would provide, by pointing to the fact that most students do not have a high level of discretionary spending power.
Rather than having a negative attitude towards music students, SOAC and others opposed to the building have expressed great concern for the inconvenience students will face with a split campus, including the expense of travel and reduction in choice of courses because of time lost in travel.
My impression on re-reading my Press correspondence file is that the majority of it has been well reasoned and comparatively temperate. There are of course always exceptions on either side of the debate and previous blogs on this site have referred to some of the less temperate statements made in public by supporters of the proposal.
What is truly tragic is that the Arts Centre Trust Board did not have a sufficient sense of stewardship to seek the views of the wider community before entering on this ill-judged course. The money spent so far in this debate by all sides would have been much better directed towards desirable and necessary work at the Arts Centre.
The assumption that the comparatively low spending power of students will not contribute significantly to the Arts Centre is not baesd on reality.During this years Akaroa music festival (run by UC students,staff and guests)the debt laden students and their teachers created a 2 week festival with 2 concerts per day (one lunchtime for students which were always packed and one evening with mixed performances).It is the audiences coming to those performances which create reivitalisation and contribute to the Arts Centres true purpose.
The SOAC pretends being greatly concerned about the inconvenience for students.
How inconvenient is it for students(and their teachers) to play in front of hardly any audience in Ilam ?
If the school of music wants to be developped (and it is aiming to do exactly that by getting high profile staff,a new violin position has just been advertised worldwide) then we need to cater for all aspects of a school,performance and lectures.
But without the performance aspect (which might involve some travel, yes) we will not develop.
We have already the best precollege training in NZ in place,
thanks to the extreme generosity of individual donors.
The development of the whole school is for the benefit of Christchurch,and the ill judged course is steered by those who put all their effort in hindering this project.
The University of Canterbury would assuage many concerns if it were to release its Marketing Plan for concerts at the proposed School of Music at the Arts Centre of Christchurch. How many concerts it plans to have annually, a performance calendar, projected audience figures, promotional advertising budgets, festival proposals and other details should be released by the university to make the case for an inner city performance venue, other then College Hall.
In addition, what research has been undertaken in regards to the potential audience size and interest, and how does this potential audience perceive an inner city venue with parking difficulties, etc? Given the prominence that advocates of the inner city site have given to the potential audience size, it is time for the university to release its marketing plan to demonstrate that a thorough investigation has been undertake into this matter, and that a robust case can be made
Gumshoe in Mouth
The Arts Centre hires a private investigator - to investigate itself - about the proposed Music School and continues in its spiral….
"primary contributors" "The implication is that those two people have something to hide, although that's not a guaranteed fact." 4 February 2010
"If it restores credibility and allows the board to move on, it will be an incredibly valuable investment," 4 February 2010
“Not knowing who was responsible leaves us in a position of uncertainty, which compromises the ongoing integrity of the board," 24 March 2010
They tried to find the leak and weren't successful.The people who shifted information outside this board and made it available to the SOAC campaigners were smart enough not having left too many traces.End of story.
Spiral ?
There will be a spiral of huge legal bills for the SOAC for all their legal battles.The August one is nearly guaranteed to fail,the consent process did not go too well due to exaggerations and senseless attacks (the usual tactics),and the environment court might not stop this once all other hurdles are cleared.So let's not be too hasty here about who will be spiralling.....
The sad reality of all this infighting in CHch will be that the city will loose its tertiary music education.
There is information leakeing that the University will not invest in Ilam and that would nearly automatically kill the music department off.
The Chch Symphony is next,already on the brink of collapse.
A grand success for SOAC,who claims to support cultural issues and the University who claims the same.
What a ludicrous town of provincial loosers.
It would indeed be sad if Christchurch lost its tertiary music education as a result of all the in-fighting, but should that occur the blame lies with the University. If it is convinced that the music school needs to be located in town, there are other sites available. It cannot be pretended that the claimed benefits of a inner city location can only accrue at the Arts Centre.
What is equally sad about the situation, is that the money being spent on legal bills could be getting spent on conservation work at the Arts Centre and on furthering music education.
The inner city option should have had more than one option ,that is for sure.It is indeed the UCs fault here.
Loosing its tertiary music education will have very negative comsequences for the town,as this will damage its reputation in New Zealand as a city of music and the arts.And no saved arts centre will gloss this one over.
It will almost certainly further diminish audience numbers which are already at a historic low in this town.Even when a worldclass soloist comes (like Hilary Hahn recently ) the town hall is not full anymore.
The winners are the lawyers and the SOAC ,the loosers the musical community.
The Arts Centre will not profit from this,as less and less perfomances will take place there.
But the shops and restaurants will be fine.
So we have a happy ending then !!
Interesting debate here,and lots of strong opinions.I can thoroughly understand the need for saving the Arts centre from further development,but I find it incomprehensible why the school of music is confronted with such venom in this town.Right from day one when I dared to voice my humble opinion in a moderate way in The Press(pointing at other countries and how they position their schools) I was branded publicly 'foolish' by some zealous SOAC supporter.The next encounter was an ad in the same paper where our whole department was reduced to 'debt laden students'.
My recital in the Great Hall in September saw a SOAC supporter about to demonstrate against: my recital=the new building ?
Further remarks by self appointed experts claim that the school is of no worth to Christchurch ,as it is one of the worst in the country.
I invite everybody to the Akaroa festival,where our students team up with International soloists and see for themselves.The comments from top musicians from the USA and Germany stated we have actually a level which is in some departments (strings above all) on a par with these countries.
The SOAC has a worthy cause.Its supporters seem to have managed not only trying to 'save the Arts centre' but to do their best to finish the School of Music off.This is a betrayal of Christchurch to itself. If these people consider themselves Cantabrians they should be supporting one of their important cultural heritages, i.e. the development of their own children and young musicians. If the Arts Centre is about some food stalls,a craft market and weddings in the Great Hall as opposed to a new and progressive culturally rewarding music school then I would question these people altogether.
I agree that the SOAC supporters have created a rather hostile environment for classical music through their relentless campaign .And I do think that Ilam as a place for a music school may not be ideal either.
What I cannot comprehend though is the fact that the University seems to have put all their money on one horse.
That surely is not the way forward.
Why on earth have they not planned alternative city centre solutions ?
They should drop the the Arts centre ,which is --as a classical concert venue--on its way out anyway.
Then one would not have to deal with SOAC at all and classical music could be injected with a much needed jab.
Is sense ever going to prevail in this town ???
Despite the Charities commission has declined to act ,the witchhunt against the Arts centre (and ultimately the Music School ) seems to go on.
I was supporting the SOAC in the beginning of their campaign but it seems there is a loss of common sense now and it is time to question and challenge some of their actions.
Michael Endres mentions the Great Hall being used for weddings instead of concerts. How did this come about?
Rather than continue the circular, and destructive, argument of ‘the proposed music school will promote music, its opponents are damaging the culture of the city’ vs. ‘the proposed building will be a brutal intrusion that will do little to enhance the musical life of the city’ its time for the University to release the Music School Business Plan. Surely, a plan exists as to how many concerts they envisage, audience size, etc. The university is full of similar business plans for all sorts of other projects. Given the support from the city’s business community, it is inconceivable that such a plan does not exist, otherwise the university’s claims are based on speculation – devoid of the rigorous analysis it promotes as an intellectual and public virtue.
The University does not have any priority booking for the Great Hall.That is a tremendous problem for us as we cannot schedule concerts as we need to and usually we only get midweek dates.The Great Hall is used for other commercial activities,which is understandable except it leaves us without planning security.
The business plan will be published when the University decides to do so.
It is not a decision to be made by the SOAC and its followers.
I would not worry about the University's "intellectual and public virtues." We are doing fine in that department and will continue to do so.
It is disappointing that the Arts Centre is unable to offer the School of Music regular bookings due to its desire to use the Great Hall for making money. Perhaps regular School of Music concerts in the Great Hall would have helped avoid the decline in the classical music audience.
The heart of academic life is that information is freely available for discussion and debate. Releasing the Business Plan is a matter of concern to the cultural community of Christchurch, and the public who have been asked to back the project with our council’s credit rating. A good Plan will withstand public scrutiny and debate.
Congratulations to the SOAC for a successful campaign.
The Arts centre is safe now from further large scale development.
The music department will have difficult times ahead and there is certainly no noticeable lobby for our work here in Christchurch.
I will continue to fight for classical music in this town as long as I can see some future for it.
I sincerely hope we do not loose tertiary music education.
Well ,if we loose it so what ?
I don't think much of classical music and we could spend the money better elsewhere,where more people are interested in like sports needs funding or the renovation of the Arts centre is of vital impoertance.
I am delighted that the SOAC won this one,and finally the University has been put in its place.
If I think how much Rod Carr and his institution cost the taxpayer the question must be asked whether Christchurch benefits from it ?
Intelligently written and well researched,Anonymous !!
I recommend you for some posthumous Monty Python sketch.
Post a Comment