There’s a terrific article by Brian Wise in the 5/20/2013 edition of WQXR.org that reports on the latest wrinkle in an ongoing lawsuit between composer Nathan Currier and the Brooklyn Philharmonic.
- In 2004, Currier apparently paid the Brooklyn Phil $72,000 to premiere one of his compositions (that’s just under $89k after inflation).
- During the 4/21/04 performance at Avery Fisher Hall, Currier alleges that orchestra officials forced him to edit his piece for length during one of the intermissions because it was going into unbudgeted overtime.
- Currier complied but the orchestra allegedly failed to follow his cuts and edited for length by their own design.
- Currier claims the unauthorized cuts led to scathing reviews and as a result, he sued the orchestra for failing to deliver what it was contracted to provide.
Wise reports much of the suit’s merit hinges on interpretation of work rules related to intermission lengths as stipulated in the Brooklyn Phil’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
For most folks with more than a cursory length of time as an arts administrator, this entire kerfuffle is the type of problem that should have never occurred in the first place. Consequently, it would be surprising to learn if all of this wasn’t the result of some terrible communication (in all directions), lack of interest amidst a fee based earned income gig, and either sloppy CBA language or sloppy adherence to thorough CBA language (or all of the above).
If nothing else, Currier’s lawsuit demonstrates the value of embracing unambiguous language related to CBA work rules. Granted, flexibility is a popular buzzword when talking about master agreements and in some instances, it is the right approach; but it is far from an ideal universal solution.
Make sure you leave some time to read the comments after going over Wise’s article, some of them are a real hoot.
Related Posts
-
One area where social media has blogs beat is facilitating discussion; case in point, I posted a question to friends and colleagues yesterday via…
-
Over the weekend, composer and arts administrator Rob Deemer sent along the latest update to his list of programming data for the 2017/18 season…
-
There's a fascinating article at The Economist titled How to make a hit Broadway show (h/t Thomas Cott) that invites readers to see if…
This is absolutely bizarre. The validity of his case stands on the complete breakdown of communication with administration. It sounds like the piece was so long it couldn’t even be completed in a single rehearsal. How did the operations director not anticipate the overtime problem?
Also, it sounds like the piece was doomed from the start. 3 hours of variations?
Exactly and totally embarrassing for the BPO. I cannot imagine ever getting into such a situation. Did these people not meet or talk ahead of time, even internally????
Agreed and although it is a very touchy subject, this is ideal reason for orchestras to review internal policies regarding fee based event activity. Yes, it’s easy to treat for-hire sessions with less attention than what is usually directed to core offerings, but in the end, that only exposes everyone to these sorts of bear taps.
I suppose Beethoven would have liked to have sued the orchestras for some of his premieres. On the other hand, the orchestra doing the famous premiere concert of his 4th concerto, 5th & 6th symphonies & Choral Fantasy might have wanted to sue Beethoven.
Other funny element is the $89K after inflation, since the Brooklyn Phil’s prestige/value has risen over the last ten years beyond any possible inflation markers — you could not hire them today to do a three-hour performance for just $89K, assuming they’re still doing such things at all. 🙂