Norman Lebrecht on Trinity College, Cambridge

[DracoM]

But even if it's today, it's a corker of a silly remark.

[french frank]

I think I'd like to come back on this. NL writes:

"Recent incumbents include Nicholas Maw, Judith Weir, Thomas Adès, Richard Causton and Tarik O'Regan, all fairly well known in Cambridge and around the UK."

To me that gives the impression that this post has normally been given to composers of a certain distinction. In fact, according to Trinity, the Fellow Commoner post (not 'composer in residence', as NL describes it) is 'to assist creative artists at the beginning of their careers'. Weir got it almost 30 years ago, when she was 29. Maw was the first appointee back in 1966, so on two counts could hardly be described as 'a recent incumbent'. Adès was 23. Trinity's mention of Maw, Weir &c was - I would assume - to show that they had been good 'pickers' in the past or had helped to develop careers successfully.

And in case anyone might think that the appointment is within the gift of any individual, it isn't only for composers/musicians but for anyone working in the 'creative arts' . My scenario is that SL nominated Ešenvalds as his 'protégé', and in the light of the other nominations Ešenvalds got it (he is 'fairly well known' in his own country). Is that any 'cosier' than Cambridge appointing its own?

[NotNormanLebrecht]

I'm not Norman Lebrecht, I just couldn't think of a suitable handle when trying to post the link! Have loved following these boards since closure of the old R3 boards, but had nothing to contribute until I saw NL's usual muck-raking!

I'm not much a fan of NL myself; however - if true, of course (big if) - it's the interrelation of these various events which looks a bit dodgy. For me, I think, the worst allegation is the creation of a post on the College staff, which wasn't advertised, and for it to be filled by his personal/professional agent without due process. If that *is* true, then I think they're getting very close to Martin Neary territory.

In this light poor Esenvalds is about to enter a rather complicated set-up which might not serve him well in the long run.

Maw was the first appointee back in 1966

- where did you find this? Good info!

I work in charitable law and, if this interests anyone, this year is the first year in which Oxbridge Colleges will have to publish their accounts (they had to register last year): http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/ne...px?objid=73492 - they will also come under the scrutiny of the Charity commission. I think this might be what NL is getting at - or rather encouraging someone to file an FOI etc.

Of course, everything depends on whether NL has his facts straight...

[french frank]

SD

I did realise - belatedly - that you weren't NL, but I think it would have been better not to use his blogging name!

I found the info about Maw being the first appointee yesterday, I think in one of the obits. I couldn't find it this morning, but Trinity's comment about the length of time the post had been in existence coincided so I assumed it was correct. Trinity has a list of the obits of all its Fellows, Honorary Fellows and Alumni - I'm sure if I went through them I'd find the source. Though I suppose it could be 'unreliable' - best say 'one of the first appointees' to be 100% proof until the claim has been verified.

Edit: Telegraph obit. The Times, Guardian and Indie don't even mention the appointment, which doesn't suggest it was hugely prestigious.

[NotNormanLebrecht]

I think it would have been better not to use his blogging name!

Ah, good point! Any ideas on how I change my handle?

[french frank]

Ah, good point! Any ideas on how I change my handle?

What would you like it changed to?

[NotNormanLebrecht]

How about: NotNormanLebrecht

Thanks!

[french frank]

Fellow-commoner: Cambridge University slang for an empty bottle, so called because fellow-commoners (a class of students) were not held to be over-full of learning. ("Seeing the row of fellow-commoners on the stairs outside his door, I have to wonder just what kind of an education dear Freddy is getting.")

[NotNormanLebrecht]

FF, thanks for changing my name!

[bach736]

Do you ever feel you're living in a parallel universe?

[Eudaimonia]

Mr. Lebrecht is Britain's most eminent, admirable, intelligent and reliable living critic.

Fair enough; he certainly has his good points. But assuming you honestly believe this and aren't just taking the mickey, do you really think it's admirable, intelligent and/or reliable to accuse people of misconduct without coming right out and making the accusation and offering proof? Don't you think it's a little...odd...he chose to pick on this relatively insignificant group of people when their situation seems no better and no worse than scores of others appointments made everywhere? Is it really a music critic's job to hypocritically peddle sleazy gossip?

Personally, I think complaining about dodgy appointments in the music industry is about as stupid as whingeing about the tides coming in and going out.

[NotNormanLebrecht]

Personally, I think complaining about dodgy appointments in the music industry is about as stupid as whingeing about the tides coming in and going out.

I more or less agree, however, I think NL is trying to point out that following the change in charitable law (mentioned above) as it applies to Oxbridge colleges from 2011, there ought to be more transparency where an institution receives tax-payer income (if only to ensure that this money doesn't go to sewn-up appointments).

[amateur51]

I completely agree with NNL & Euda!

[french frank]

In any case, let's repeat, it's an academic/college appointment, not a music appointment - it's for anyone working in the creative arts; and it's not a prestigious appointment - it's for people 'at the beginning of their careers', perhaps different, but on a par with, the New Generation Artists scheme.

And dodgy academic appointments aren't unusual: my head of department/doctoral supervisor invited me to apply for a vacancy that was imminent in my specialism. The post was advertised, two were shortlisted and I got it (probably to the surprise of no one). The prof had known me and my work for three years, I'd done undergrad teaching in the department along with other members of staff, he was satisfied I could do the job. If he has to choose between me and someone he doesn't know at all, all things being equal, why would he choose the stranger who might be a dead loss? When there are tens or hundreds who could be chosen, knowing someone is suitable/adequate is often the best you have to go on: your knowledge against someone else's opinion.

[NotNormanLebrecht]

The post was advertised, two were shortlisted and I got it (probably to the surprise of no one).

That might be dodgy, but I'm sure you were the best candidate - and this is above board and legal. To not advertise a job at all - even internally only (if NL's intimation is correct) - is a different matter altogether and one which falls far short of the various regulations in place to stop conflicts of interest in the UK charitable sector.

Edit: to be clear I'm talking about NL's comments on the appointment of Paul Nicholson, Polyphony's agent, to the College's staff, not Esenvalds.