Major: This is May 2. I'm Jean Major. I'm talking to Leslie Friedman about the Virginia Symphony, its growth and development into a nationally recognized symphony. Can you tell me how your involvement with the symphony started?
Friedman: My involvement started in the late forties. My parents were in the piano and music business on Freemason Street, and as a kid I was dragged kicking and screaming to the old Center Theatre to hear the Norfolk Symphony.
Major: So you've been an audience member, and what other kinds of involvement have you had with the symphony?
Friedman: Well, I continued attending the regular classical season, lived through the gyrations of the merger with the Peninsula and other organizations, and in 1991-92 season, I joined the board, and it -- that brings me up to your question.
Major: What have been your particular specialties on the board?
Friedman: Other than general board membership, I've served twice as the treasurer and for many, many years on the finance committee. And twice on the, the executive committee.
Major: I was going to ask, if you serve as treasurer, does that automatically mean you serve on the executive committee?
Friedman: Yes.
Major: But other members of the finance committee probably don't.
Friedman: No, not sincerely.
Major: It's been my sense, in the research that I've done so far, that a number of major decisions are taken by the executive committee. Can you tell me a little bit more about the structure of the board and where, what the executive committee does, compared to everybody else?
Friedman: Well, I think the formal structure is fairly conventional compared to other organizations, particularly non-profits. However, de facto I would say that the executive committee is less than usually autocratic in its decisions. The ones
[2]
that represent an emergency or very, very short-term decisions that have to be made, they make. And they seek ratification at the following board meeting. But since our board meetings are now -- what quarterly or every other month? I, I forget at the moment. Since that policy was adopted, they're making a few more decisions, but a lot of major decisions for both legal and in normal operating reasons go to the full board.
Major: What about the finance committee? What is the major obligation of the finance committee?
Friedman: The finance committee deals with moment-to-moment financial problems and challenges. It is a pre-screening organization for the budget. It recommends the budget to the executive committee, which ultimately recommends it to the full board.
Major: OK. So that it has more to do with money management than it does with fundraising.
Friedman: Absolutely. Fundraising is a separate and distinct position both on the staff and the board.
Major: Are there other committees of the board that are particularly central?
Friedman: Well, I can't think of them all at the moment, but certainly one would be the board that comes up from time to time to audition and interview a new artistic or musical director. And because of the usual tenure of someone like JoAnn Falletta, for example, that committee is likely to be different each time it's brought into play.
Major: And there's a committee of the board that is only responsible for recruiting the artistic director?
Friedman: Correct. Well, they probably have other duties. I've not served on it, so I can't state that categorically.
Major: How hands-on has this board been?
Friedman: In recent years, I would say more than customary, and that has been a . . . a combination of reasons if you'd like to hear them.
Major: Yes!
Friedman: Oh… one reason is that the board is changing in constitution. It is somewhat younger, and it is leaning a little, even more than a little, away from old Norfolk. And while including some old Norfolk in the new people, it's leaning towards people who have the connections, the horsepower, the position in the
[3]
community to go out and raise funds in a more active way. I think, although I haven't done the arithmetic, but board membership is also coming down in age significantly, which is probably a good thing.
Major: There have been people on the symphony board who have been on for many years -- 30, 35 years. Can you tell me why there have been such long terms?
Friedman: I think it's a combination of -- use your cliché but westside Norfolk, old Norfolk and certainly among that same group, people who were genuinely interested in the progression of the arts in this city and in this area.
Major: What-- over time can you characterize their contributions?
Friedman: Well, it depends on the period, the crisis that you're talking about, but it's in the nature of a lot of arts organizations to have financial problems that threaten continued existence. And I would say that the first group that you asked about were the people who -- well they might not be so proactive in today's terms with the people who put up the barricades and kept the lights burning.
Major: Um-hmm, because my recollection is, there were times which were very unsteady.
Friedman: Many, many of them. And . . . and placing blame is not for me to do, and it's not really constructive, but at one period it could be weak management; at another period it could be weak board oversight. And sometimes just the exigencies of funding an existing and a growing arts organization.
Major: What do you -- what kinds of things do you think made, have made certain board members very effective?
Friedman: Well, I think it's, as usual a combination of things. Business position and connections . . . natural ability . . . energy . . . and a combination of interest in the arts. Some board members are more, more interested. They may love music, but they're more interested in the symphony entity as a civic asset, and others are more interested because they were born, raised and loved music.
Major: . . . What are some of the high points of your service on the board?
Friedman: Well, I would--one of them is very general in nature. Which is that we've had a succession of conductors, artistic directors, some of whom were liked more, some of whom weren't liked so much. But in my view, and I'm not a musicologist, all of them made some kind of contribution to the musical improvement of the, of the symphony. I'm sorry, what was the rest of your question?
Major: What were some of the, some of the high points?
[4]
Friedman: Certainly the arrival of JoAnn Falletta. I think that, even before the ensuing years during which she proved herself, she was accepted, welcomed and assumed to be the person who she proved she is. A specific high point was the trip to Carnegie Hall. Well we . . . well, we took ourselves to Carnegie Hall, as opposed to being invited. It was a thorough-going success! And the reviews, for example The New York Times, were extremely complimentary. Similarly, the trip to Kennedy Center, which was an occasion when we were invited to go there.
Major: I had not been aware of that. I was in the audience at Kennedy Center, but I had not been aware of the distinction.
Friedman: I can't, unfortunately, remember the group that invited us, but I do remember that being said and talked about quite a bit.
Major: I bet. What were some of the other memorable moments that were, that were not high points?
Friedman: Well, some of some of them are better not on tape --
Major: [Laughs]
Friedman: But arts organizations have that kind of thing happen. I will say this, that from the literature that I've read about other symphonies, there is less cliquishness, less small, of small groups going in different directions with our symphony than you sometimes hear about.
Major: That's interesting.
Friedman: We, we all, and I include the musicians in this, specifically, we are all pulling -- we all have disagreements, but at the end of the day we are all pulling in the same direction.
Major: Who are the executive directors you've worked with?
Friedman: Uh . . .
Major: [Laughs]
Friedman: Dan Hart, I remember. I've been there all these years, and I can't remember.
Major: After Dan was, oh gosh! There were two whose names I can't bring up. And then there's John Morison and –
[5]
Friedman: John. John was, of course, came on condition that he be an interim director. And, and that, in that role I think he was extremely effective. And one of his favorite terms was “Let's do best practices,” and he introduced more than a few of those.
Major: Yes, I imagine he did.
Friedman: While we're on that, let me just say that Carla Johnson -- even though Dan Hart went through an, I think it was called an internship at the American Symphony Orchestra League, and he was quite effective, I think Carla, probably… in my mind, not probably, definitely represents the most professional level of orchestra management. She is able to know music, so that she can speak to the musicians. She knows management and has a track record at it. And while a lot of people think managers are dull people and routine people, she is innovative and imaginative, comes up with very, very good ideas.
Major: What other staff do the board interact with?
Friedman: Well of course, Carla’s executive assistant, Cathy Trueman. Because she basically answers the phone, fields calls, takes things that are within her realm to do and just makes those things happen, so that Carla doesn't have to get bogged down. I would say that interface with the development officer, Jen Barbee, is more than average for interface between volunteer board members and staff members. There may be others and in fact, some of the key staffers come to board meetings.
Major: I would imagine when you were on the finance committee and when you served as treasurer, there must have been interaction with the staff member who had financial responsibility.
Friedman: You're absolutely right, and I left out a great key name, who is, the incumbent now is Brad Kirkpatrick. And he is basically the, he is the chief financial officer. But he also, because of thin staffing, does a lot of other things that have to do with the exchequer.
Major: When did the symphony staff begin to grow? It's, I know it's considerably larger than it used to be.
Friedman: I really can't -- it happened over so long a period and so gradually, in my memory, I couldn't put a date on it.
Major: As a long, long time audience member, can you characterize the Edgar Schenkman period?
[6]
Friedman: I really can't because it was, most of what I would hear -- I was still living at home part of that time, at home and-- it was just things I overheard and don't remember. I'm I'm not hiding it; it's just ancient history.
Major: OK, how about the Russell Stanger period?
Friedman: Russell Stanger, of course, was known as a protégé of Bernstein. He lives across the street from me. He -- many summers he went to Saratoga to conduct --
Major: Still does!
Friedman: Does he really? He has been invited on numerous occasions to Japan to conduct, maybe he still does! And I know him because he's a neighbor, and I know him because he was symphony conductor. But beyond that, I can't say much.
Major: Do you know what caused his period to end?
Friedman: I do not.
Major: What about Richard Williams and Winston Dan Vogel? Both were very short-term directors. Do you know why that was?
Friedman: I do not personally know. I can only repeat hearsay. In the case of Winston Dan Vogel, the hearsay was that he was verbally a bit sharp with people. With Maestro Williams, my -- I didn't really hear that much. My personal reaction was that his music was correct but wouldn't -- I didn't think there was much . . . much real emotion to a lot of his music. And it seems to me that most music, if not all, entails emotions as well as ears.
Major: What do you think are the accomplishments of those two guys?
Friedman: Well, I thought in William's case, and again please bear in mind I'm not a musicologist, I thought that Williams got more of all of the notes played, and it seemed to me he was a stickler for that. Winston Dan Vogel, I couldn't comment except to say that in a very general way, I think the symphony continued to improve under his leadership.
Major: For a long time, the expectation in this community was that the symphony conductor would be local, would settle locally, and that the Virginia Symphony Orchestra or its antecedents would be the primary professional conducting association. Can you explain the perspectives that led to that expectation?
Friedman: I can't explain it from the perspective of the inner-inner circle because I've, I've been in that circle little or none, depending on who you ask. I think the
[7]
development in that direction is more a matter of pragmatism. If you're going to have a full-time symphony of musicians, it seems to me a corollary that, sooner or later, you're going to look to find a musical, a musical director, who has a regional or national reputation. It fits with what I take to be the musicians’ aspirations and the aspirations for the symphony, and I certainly wouldn't vote against an appropriate local person, but I think it leans in a more regional and national direction.
Major: When JoAnn Falletta was recruited, it was recognized that she was not going to be local; she was not going to live here all the time, and she had other conducting responsibilities. Do you know what changed to make the community willing to go along with that?
Friedman: I think that, in a broad-based way, the community has been willing to follow the leadership of the board and the officers of the board. I don't go back far enough as a board member to state that, but my impression is that the community has -- well it might have some local patriotism, call it, or provincialism even; I think they recognize the primary goal is to have a first-rate orchestra.
Major: OK. I know that you were not on the board at the time that several ensembles merged, but I wonder what you observed about it as a, as an audience member, as a community resident when the Norfolk Symphony and the Virginia Beach Pops and the Peninsula Symphony merged. What can you tell us about that?
Friedman: Just as a, as a layperson, as a person not on the board, it was just loose talk around town. The nature of which, a lot was negative. The Peninsula was losing its symphony; its leader, according to some stories, was not treated well. Some of the same with Virginia Beach. And it -- there was vitriol, but as an individual I regretted that, but I didn't get too upset by it because I think change happens, and not everyone likes change. And some people get bruised in the course of bringing change to bear.
Major: Can I ask something about the foundation? What has the Symphony Foundation contributed to the orchestra's viability?
Friedman: The uh -- by the way I am on the Foundation Board.
Major: I thought you were.
Friedman: The foundation has -- because of the various crises of the symphony, the foundation has spent a lot of time in the soul-searching business. And it has been a source of annual income for the symphony because a substantial part of the income from the foundation goes to the symphony directly. On various occasion – occasions, the foundation has come to the symphony's rescue. I wasn't there when the foundation was founded, but I don't think that was its original intent. I think its original intent -- and I'm subject to challenge on this, of
[8]
course -- was to provide some income for the symphony and to provide for things like special events, provide a cushion in time of need. But, the term “banker of last resort” has come up during various crises, and older and wiser heads than mine on that board at the time said “No, that was not the purpose of the foundation.”
Major: By “banker of last resort”, does that mean spending some of the principal? Is that what was being considered?
Friedman: It could. The two things considered were – well, several things: temporary loans, the corpus basically can't be distributed. However it -- to the symphony for normal, normal purposes. But part of the corpus can and has been predicated for loans to the symphony. I better add to that, that some major gifts to the foundation do not allow for that. And if and when that happens, specific and individual permission has to be sought.
Major: What has the Symphony League contributed to the viability of the orchestra?
Friedman: Well, they run the annual car auction which is, raises a significant amount of money. They do other things for the symphony, which over my years on the board have ranged from answering the telephone, licking envelopes, I think a few league members have even ushered from time to time. During one of my stints as treasurer, I was asked to speak to the league. So I did a little homework, and I was shocked to find out that at that time, the entire league contribution of individuals and the league as a group was contributing in excess of 10 percent of all private contributions to the symphony. I was very impressed with that. And I think it made the league members feel good about what they do.
Major: Make sure I understand. The money, you're saying that the combination, the money that the league raises, however they raise --
Friedman: Yes.
Major: Plus the gifts of individual league members --
Friedman: No, I misstated that. Just the money that the league raised as a league --
Major: Uh huh --
Friedman: -- represented about 10 percent of all private giving at that time.
Major: That's very interesting, very interesting. Can you give me an assessment of the overall importance of the contributions of women in this community to assure the viability of the symphony?
[9]
Friedman: Well . . . I think of names of . . . this isn't going on WTAR or anything?
Major: [stifled laugh] No! [laughs] No!
Friedman: I think of names like Winnie Baldwin, Eleanor Marshall, several others who unfortunately don't come to mind right now. And they were leaders early on when certainly not as many women as now were accepted in leadership positions. And they did two things. They raised funds; they made sure tickets got sold. But they also, broke if you will, the glass ceiling. They made it easier for the women who came behind them to have an impact. And while that generation of women never had someone to be president or later chairman of the symphony, now it isn't unusual at all.
Major: That's right. How strong has the symphony been in the last 10 years or so?
Friedman: In financial terms? Or --
Major: Or in whatever terms --
Friedman: Well I think in artistic terms, it has just grown and grown and grown. We . . . I think the reputation lagged the fact. But it's been years now since we were a little Norfolk symphony, in name or anything else. The financial problems have continued; we've now had, I believe, four years of break-even or black ink. And it, and folks are prone to think, “Wow! They're out of the woods!” Well, we're in the right direction, but we're not “out of the woods”. And this -- there are various arcane accounting rules which lead to that. The main one of which is, if some generous person gives us a, let's say 100,000 dollars, accounting rules will require us to book that all right now. The 100,000 dollars might come in over the next five years.
Major: Even though it's, in part, a pledge --
Friedman: Yes.
Major: Iit has to be entered right now.
Friedman: That's right.
Major: That's interesting.
Friedman: And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but that's why I had to take accounting twice! [Laughter]
Major: [Laughter] So it's a little deceptive about the cash on hand.
[10]
Friedman: Exactly. It's -- you can have a really good looking year on paper, but your cash flow statement doesn't look that good at all.
Major: What do you think were the major contributing factors to the improved finances?
Friedman: Well, it's, I always say if someone gives more than reason, one reason, for something, part of it isn't the truth. But it really is the truth. We have had some board members who, along with the people they influence, have been very, very generous. We have had better management . . . or let me say, a combination of volunteer board management and professional staff management, and that isn't to say we didn't have it in the past, but we'd have one of one and then later on we'd have one of the other. We, right now we've got a happy meeting of those talents. And I think to the extent that our . . . our prospects have improved and are improving is a result of having talent on both sides.
Major: How did the Virginia Symphony become a nationally recognized orchestra?
Friedman: Well, I think that . . . I think Carnegie and Kennedy trips -- had a significant amount to do with it. I think the presence and the reputation of JoAnn Falletta has a lot to do with it. And I think that the presence and reputation of individual musicians in the symphony have a lot to do with it. What I mean by that is that when we get those people, it almost always means they're stepping up to us. And when we unfortunately lose those people, we lose them to a step up for them. And I don't think that happens if you don't have the beginnings of a regional or a national reputation. The musicians just don't know you if you're not developing that kind of reputation, at least I doubt that they do.
Major: I think that's right. What additional things need to happen to increase the visibility?
Friedman: Well, I would not like to see us ignore or take artistic improvement for granted. However -- and having said that, that has been and is happening. The number one concern that I have and some of my fellow board members is the expansion of, of the endowment or the foundation. The . . . the nature of the symphony is it -- even with individual giving, with grants and all the rest that goes on, it still needs a supplement from the foundation. And there is, in fact, a campaign to help make that happen. It's in its quiet phase; please don't put that in the WTAR. But it has begun, and it is progressing both on -- it's a, it's a three-pointed fork. There's a professional advisor; there's board support; and there's staff support. The good news is that it's happening. The kinda not-so-good news is that the campaign could move forward more vigorously if the budget allowed for more staff. But we're trying to be prudent, and with Carla at the head of the line,she's the one that knows when the light bill comes.
Major: I assume that the professional assistance you referred to was the man who interviewed my husband and me –
[11]
Friedman: Yes.
Major: -- at some -- several months ago --
Friedman: Donald Craig --
Major: That's right.
Friedman: He's excellent. I've known him for perhaps six or seven years, and in my experience with him, everything he says must happen, happens.
Major: Do you remember when the musicians were put on salary? It happened in 1985, but that was the first time there was a full-time salaried orchestra.
Friedman: I'm sure I was aware of it at the time, but frankly I don't remember any of the specifics.
Major: Any sense of how it finally happened after so many years when the musicians were paid on a per service basis?
Friedman: It would -- well it's . . . there's still a service formula, but it's a contract. So it amounts to -- it is a salary. But no, I have to assume that in the nature of moving towards a full-time, professional orchestra that, that . . . that was probably a pretty strenuous desire of the musicians combined with some board members who thought, “Maybe the time has come.” But that's speculation on my part.
Major: What kind of interaction do board members have with musicians?
Friedman: It varies greatly. I wish I had more. I've not promoted that as vigorously as I would like. There are -- I would guesstimate on the order of eight to 10 board members who interface with musicians regularly, and it comes in different ways. One example would be, for example, Minette Cooper who is . . . probably the most hyperactive, long-term board member I've ever known. She's a past president, and she is extremely energetic about outreach for education. And in that, in that theater of activity, she is interacting with the musicians all the time. She's not the only one, but I think she might be out of ________ on that question.
Major: Are there things that you thought I might ask or you wished I might ask that haven't come up?
Friedman: The only one that occurs to me on the spur of the moment is the civic issue, and by civic I mean “quality of life” for those of us who are here. Selling and talking points for people in the City of Norfolk Development Department, The Hampton Roads Partnership, the mayors -- Mayors and Chairs Caucus. People like that who are in position to make presentations to businesses that are looking
[12]
at us to move here or to have a major branch here. And those people to the extent that they, that they have a sizable staff or even a small staff are concerned with quality of life. And in a very, very general way, I think it contributes to the presence and the reputation of the community, whether you say Norfolk or “the region”.-- Uh, I know the mayor is very big on sports. And he would like to have a named sports organization here! Well, I think the symphony and the rest of the arts organizations might not appeal to the exact same crowd, but they add that kind of panache to how the city and the area are known, and so I think its civic value is very significant. The other thing, in that same general area, I call its “commercial value”. The symphony brings people here. They're a payroll; they spend money; they educate their children; they contribute to the community not only artistically, but commercially and financially. They bank here; they sometimes invest here. So they . . . they are a commercial and financial presence as well as artistic and cultural.
Major: This has been very interesting. Thank you very much.
Friedman: Thank you.
Major: I'm delighted we got together.
Friedman: And I am also.
END OF INTERVIEW
TOP |
