Guess what? Curtis Institute has gone into artist management
NewsIt appears that the Curtis Institute has quietly followed San Francisco Conservatory by going into the music business.
Curtis currently represents the Dover Quartet and pianist Michelle Cann.
It has just promoted staffer Andrew Lane to Vice President, Touring and Artist Management, ‘taking on an important leadership role as Curtis expands its global presence and launches a new artist management initiative’.
Lane is a former booking agent at Opus3, which has been taken over by SanFran Con.
Expect some competition.
Expect also further disintegration of the old-style music biz.
These are truly the end days.
These are all interesting variations on a theme. Artists also have at their fingertips the ability to communicate through technological advances and create new projects and establish connections when appropriate and possible. The combination of this with good managerial staff juxtaposing healthy artistic relationships can build toward the future. Will work for some, not all.
I have no problem changing the “old style music biz” but I don’t understand how this benefits Curtis in any way. (I said the same about the San Francisco Conservatory merger.) And if they are going to be booking agents — ie., engage in a for-profit business activity — does this affect their non-profit status?
No, it makes sense. Because the management industry was always working as a for-profit business within a non-profit world.
Yes, of course. But I was referring to the legal issues of non-profit status.
A non-profit can own a for profit business in most US states. There are a number of different mechanisms for setting this up. Essentially, they just have to pay business taxes on the revenues.
This is hardly surprising, given the “Name-Image-Likeness” kerfuffle with the NCAA. It was only a matter of time before the process found its way to the music world.
If only college musicians made as much as college athletes!!
Andrew is a gifted and dedicated leader in the arts industry with a long track record of serving artists and the institutions that support them. Curtis, and the artists he will shepherd, are very lucky to have him at the helm.
Well technically Curtis has been helping students’ careers for decades. Managers, promoters, and conductors have come to Curtis for as long as the school has existed, to recruit young artists. The teachers have had a direct line in with many of these people too.
Just as long as they have equity, diversity and inclusion paradigms all will be well!!
I don’t see what the issue is.
It would seem to be an inevitable response to those constant criticisms that conservaotries do not prepare students for real life, and that they should instead be trade schools, like Berkleee, who buy up failing conservatories partly for the name prestige but more often for the real estate value.
Berklee has only acquired one other conservatory and has invested significant dollars that have greatly benefitted the Boston Conservatory. Berklee is no more or less a trade school than Curtis, Colburn, Juilliard, or Yale. And believe me, Berklee doesn’t need the name prestige of BoCo or Curtis for that matter, as more people know the name Berklee, than Colburn and Curtis combined.
And more people know the name of Hans Zimmer or FittyCent than Aaron Copland, which proves exactly what?
There’s nothing the matter with being a trade school, but it is not a reason to claim it is a conservatory.
If done well, could be good early career builders for the next generation. In the past, people like Edna Landau fostered young careers. With boutique agencies returning as they were popular in the early to middle 20th century, this could be a good start for newcomers, to patiently build their repertoire and visibility in the larger marketplace. As long as nothing too soon to burn out young careers before they have enough in their tool box to sustain a career.
Watch out Askonas cult and Splintermusica.
Try it! And if it works, why not? If they can get talented kids paying gigs, more power to then!
How is this serving the student body as a whole? This might serve a very select group of students, but that should not be the aim of a school. Also, what processes are put in place to determine which students get signed? To me, it sounds like an invitation for nepotism.