NY Times bangs PR drum again for new Boston boss
OrchestrasFor the third time, the Times has published a glorious encomium to the Boston Symphony boss, Chad Smith:
Sneaking through the shrubbery, however, was the light breeze of change. Chad Smith, the Boston Symphony’s ambitious new president and chief executive, plans to return this august institution to its most radical roots. Should Smith have his way, Tanglewood will see its creaking theater refurbished and put to good use, its Linde Center for Music and Learning pressed into service year-round, and Seranak, Serge Koussevitzky’s old home in the hills, restored as a meeting place for artists and the public.
This will take years, and tens of million of dollars, but for now, even one of the coloring sheets that volunteers offer eager children has heard the message: a butterfly, yet to be filled in, with the tagline “A Summer Tradition Transformed.”
Read more PR fluff here.
The Times paid no attention whatsoever to the previious regime at Boston, or to Chad himself when he was controversially in charge at the LA Phil.
Clearly some new PR has taken charge and the Times is now Chad’s flak and the Boston Symphony’s Izvestia.
“But he remains a curiously modest interpreter. He doesn’t achieve the architectural discipline that colleagues who similarly try to get out of the way of the music can impose, nor does he draw out sufficient clarity or detailing of consequence along the way.
“Friday’s “Eroica” Symphony was typical: solid but unremarkable. Sunday’s Strauss, the 78th Boston Symphony concert for which Nelsons has programmed works by this composer, sorely lacked character, above all in the suite from “Der Rosenkavalier.” Rarely can Octavian and the Marschallin have romped so cautiously, or Baron Ochs appeared so even keeled.”
The Times is also, once again, doing its part to help Chad Smith get rid of Nelsons. If you are a fan of Nelsons in Boston, you better hope the board doesn’t pay attention to the New York Times, because they WILL continue to make everything at the BSO all about Chad, the one that is feeding them stories and keeping them employed.
Yes, the NY Times is the of the view that critics and administrators should be leading the arts, not the ones creating
The NYT thinks of itself as an outsized political and social influencer more than a responsible member of the fourth estate. Just look at the overreaching mandates of the Times Editorial Board in matters political of late.
In terms of arts coverage, it has shown for many years now that it refuses to apply the resources or journalistic integrity to be in a position to offer any opinions.
Well, the switch to a rolling contract obviously gave both parties the ability to call it quits whenever they wanted. And it seems highly likely that a condition of Chad’s appointment was to get to pick his own music director sooner than later.
Based on recordings, I’d argue that Nelsons is uneven, and there are others more deserving of the BSO post. Some of the recordings have been very fine, but many are “meh” to head scratching bad.
No. Generally the President/Executive Director doesn’t get to pick a new music director. In America, the administration is in service to the music director, not the opposite. Maybe with Ernst Fleischman, but not since.
That’s completely false.
In the United States, the President & CEO picks the music director with either informal or formal approval of the board.
In fact, a frequent complaint from musicians is their lack of input in the hiring process.
After Zach Woolfe’s disastrous BSO Carnegie review, where the Times had to come back with a puff piece in an attempt to legitimize him, they have had nothers review BSO performance. That said, The Times does not matter much to Boston and Nelsons is in no danger. Smith on the other hand is not winning friends in Symphony Hall, or on the Board with some of his madness. When the kitchen gets too hot, Smith will be jumping to his next lily pad. Eventually, he will be out of options.
The NYT is blamed for everything, when it’s too harsh with local bands, when it’s not harsh enough, when it reviews, when it doesn’t review, frankly, the current classical music situation is so precarious, there is nothing wrong the only existing classical music department left in the whole of the US of A to promote the local scene a little, even if it means a little PR fluff here and there. Don’t worry that harsh review will come.
The power Norman ascribes to the NYT is laughable.
It ceased to be “the paper of record” decades ago. Various editorial blunders over the last decade have chipped away at its reputation. And the dumb hot-takes of columnists and formulaic headlines are brutally mocked by satirists like the New York Times Pitchbot.
Finally, the NYT has intentionally deprioritized news reporting to focus on more lucrative ventures, like games and cooking (Times leadership would likely admit that they don’t care much about classical music anymore because they make way more money from Wordle).
Huh? You obviously don’t read the Times.
Nothing wrong with a little PR fluff? If the NYT expects to maintain some semblance of journalistic integrity and its supposed status as the newspaper of record, then a hometown booster club has no place. Besides, it doesn’t quite work…just ask Peter Gelb on his sinking ship
Has the Times ever done a piece about Gary Ginstling of the New York Philharmonic?
Hah, hah…WHO?
It’s damned if you don’t, damned if you do.
Most of the time we hear about how the Times isn’t covering classical music. Now someone writes about how the new BSO chief wants to revive Tanglewood, and it gets derided as a puff piece. Not every article has to be a bit of hard-hitting investigation. And the review of the BSO was, as is probably appropriate, mixed.
What? The Times made a conscious choice to stop writing reviews for most of the concerts in NYC but decided to write endless puff pieces for an executive who has as of yet achieved nothing instead. How is that a “damned if you don’t, damned if you do” situation?
O, yes … like you and Charlotte Lee.
“Sneaking through the shrubbery, however, was the light breeze of change.”
COME ON
I will never forgive CS for what he did to the logo. What replaced the iconic BSO logo is bland and befitting of a third-tier-orchestra. I had half a mind to tear him a new one when I saw him at TW last weekend.
Agreed I loved the classic BSO logo
WHAT classic BSO logo? In the 50+ years that I’ve been paying attention they’ve gone through several. Quite frankly, although I would probably recognize it if I saw it, if you asked me what their logo is now or what it was two years ago I couldn’t tell you and I am definitely a fanboy of our orchestra.
Immediately changing an organizations iconic logo is definitely a rookie move. They think it will somehow brand their efforts; sadly, it often does.
What’s wrong with broadcasting the new chief’s vision? Isn’t that what arts journalists are supposed to do?
Lt. Kije: I will never forgive CS for what he did to the logo.
——-
I get what you mean. The new design isn’t as sophisticated.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fit it.
However, Smith may have wanted a new logo to appeal to fans of hip hop or Taylor Swift. Not sure if that’s sarcasm or not.
Well, he IS handsome.
Since some folks seem to be fixated on the change in the BSO’s logo here is a lengthy article about it.
It doesn’t say how long they were working on this, but aren’t these things usually worked on for some time before being put in place? My guess, based on no actual knowledge, would be that this was in the works before Chad Smith took over.
https://www.printmag.com/branding-identity-design/colossal-refresh-for-the-boston-symphony-orchestra/