In my last posting I started providing some context and explanation for my criteria, but conscious of the length at which I’d written, ultimately desisted. I shouldn’t have: this is a topic worth exploring in some depth. In short, every point reflects some combination of both differentiation and adaptation  – not differentiation from Venezuela, but from the plethora of highly sophisticated, very worthwhile musical activity already taking place in Western Classical pedagogical traditions, and the evolution or transformation required to represent the ideals of el Sistema accurately.

1) Mission – there’s a very clear differentiation here. The Western classical pedagogical tradition is geared exclusively to the production of musical excellence, something it does extremely well.  The idea of advancing social change to a point of equality with musical excellence at the level of mission represents in and of itself a radical shift in thinking.

2) Method – here’s another major point of divergence. Music education in the developed world focuses on the training and advancement of the individual, with ensemble music a very distant second. El Sistema inverts this entirely.

3) Frequency – Perhaps the most clear-cut of all differentiators, classical music education right now is structured almost universally to a frequency of contact once a week: one private lesson a week, perhaps one orchestra or choral rehearsal a week, and no more. While it may seem unduly black and white, requiring a frequency of anything more than once a week basically doubles the existing level of musical activity and contact, and represents a major step forward.

4) Affordability – Let’s face it, classical music instruction is extremely expensive, and thus is the near-exclusive purview of the financially privileged. Most of the existing conservatory, youth orchestra and similar programs operate on tuition-based models, and what financial aid is available is always awarded based on competitive audition. Ironically, winning those auditions requires significant financial investment before the fact, creating something of a vicious circle. I don’t think everything has to be free, however. It isn’t in Venezuela, and we have to be conscious of North American financial realities too. Basing fees on the ability to pay is one of a few ways this could be addressed, but the bottom line is that no one should be turned away because of lack of means.

5) Non-selectivity -back to those auditions again. For many orchestras or musical programs, if the musician doesn’t pass the audition, that’s where it ends. Note that I didn’t say that it’s incumbent upon el Sistema organizations to accommodate every applicant, only to facilitate the process of finding an appropriate outlet in which they can play. This is a reflection of the fact that there is an existing, highly sophisticated music education industry in America, wonderful in its own right, rather than the vacuum in which Dr. Abreu built the program in Venezuela, and that the creation of connections is one of the most powerful ways in which our organizations can support these ideals without departing from their artistic missions or ceding autonomy.

I don’t expect this elaboration to resolve the issue entirely, nor is my position on these immutable. All I’ve attempted to do is set the bar, and set it  high but also realistically, in relation to where we as an industry currently stand. Once we’ve met the standard, I sincerely hope and expect it will rise again.

Standing in opposition to the soundbites are the as-yet unsuccessful attempts to define or even agree upon what constitutes the fundamental qualities of el Sistema. These generally impose artificial constructs  on the program, or read like pretentious re-writes of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The consequences of this indecision are that the well-intentioned but ignorant or opportunistic (or both) describe their music education initiatives as el Sistema when in fact the programs are nothing of the sort.  I recently received an email from a conductor of an elite youth orchestra, a group which is extremely selective in admissions, only pursues musical excellence, rehearses once a week, and charges vast sums of money in tuition, in which the conductor described his work as the “local version of el Systema” [sic].  I also had recent correspondence from the head of a music school who expressed his disinterest in el Sistema because the institution “already gave some $200,000 in scholarship money to needy children”… granted after audition, and for private lessons only. These clearly are very far removed from el Sistema, although that is not under any circumstances a value judgment on the quality of the work they accomplish.

These misinterpretations, leading to misstatements, is what makes this exercise important. There are only a few ideas relating to el Sistema that can clearly and simply expressed, with the remainder being high-falutin’ philosophy, over-complication or over-extrapolation. I know this because I’ve been repeatedly asked of late by many different organizations how to go about starting a program, and what it would look like – and I have to have an answer. Here’s what I say.

1) el Sistema organizations seek social change through the pursuit of musical excellence. One happens through the other, and neither is prioritized above the other.

2) el Sistema organizations are centered around ensembles. Musicians come together to rehearse and perform, because these are the acts that yield social benefit.

3) el Sistema ensembles meet at least twice a week.

4) el Sistema programs are accessible- not free, necessarily, but based on the ability to pay.

5) el Sistema organizations are not selective. This doesn’t mean that everyone gets a chair in the top orchestra automatically, but that the organization finds an appropriate outlet within its programming or within a partner’s for every person who comes to the door.

I believe these criteria are the only ones which could be applied without exception or modification to every single núcleo in Venezuela, and thus form a reasonable benchmark. These definitions exclude many, many of the musical activities already taking place around the world, and that is intentional. For example, point 3 only requires more than once a week, because once a week is our current norm. They exclude the elite youth orchestra and the music school of afore-mentioned infamy. They’re general and yet specific.

My answer might change… in fact,  I assume it will, as national programs grow and develop, but we collectively need some kind of benchmark now. There’s no consequence to following or ignoring the above, nor any value judgment, but if there are no guidelines there’s no unity and no movement.

I was fortunate that I was able to see him just a month ago, on a side trip to Victoria, British Columbia, while in the region for a professional audition. I made a point of crossing the San Juan de Fuca Strait just to visit him, cognizant that it could be a last opportunity.  He was incredibly energetic and lively, despite being near skeletal after months of chemotherapy, and his conducting calendar was still full. Just a few days after my visit he was going to give his farewell concert at the University, a program of his favourites, and he was already planning the summer and fall activities of his “retirement.” We joked about Monteux signing a 20 year contract at the age of 80, with a further extension clause built in.

It’s been ten years since I last had a lesson with him, but I can’t say I ever stopped learning from him, even if only by revisiting our lessons in my mind. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to study with him – doubly so, because I was a rotten student, and much of his wisdom and experience was wasted on me during the two years I had with him. It was only later that I started to appreciate how much insight and knowledge he had to offer. This isn’t the revisionism or self-effacement of regret. I’ve thought this for years now, as my conducting career has developed and as I’ve met and worked with many people of greater fame.

And now one more lesson from him, a reminder that we can understand something intellectually, and yet have it remain utterly meaningless until it is experienced emotionally. Those individuals who share of their art selflessly and passionately can and do change lives, and thanks to him, my life was changed.

I’m proud to be part of his human legacy.

Viszontlátásra, Professor.

First and foremost of those is a document of most painful genesis and equally painful ongoing evolution, the “Fundamentals of El Sistema.” This paper, distributed to conference attendees, is an initial attempt led by Mark Churchill and El Sistema USA to articulate the common values and guiding philosophies of the work of the Fundación in Venezuela, and how it might inform the activities of the movement in North America and beyond. This was a major focus of the Fellows for the week before the conference, and the process of its creation was far more contentious and challenging than anyone expected. The discussion and debate resembled that of Saxe’s Six Wise Men of Hindustan, although I hasten to add that no Fellow has a vision impairment.  It was fascinating how nine individuals of similar philosophical bent and 5 months of identical training could have very different experiences and come back with multiple disparate understandings of the functioning of the orchestra network in Venezuela. The situation in and of itself is indicative of the complex and dynamic nature of the work of the Fundación. Every núcleo tackles challenges differently, for the simple reason that many of the challenges are unique to the locale, whether those be staffing, facilities, musical materials, financing, or community.  The end result of this supreme adaptability is a national initiative that, if summarization is essential, has to be described or defined in the most general, if not outright vague of terms. It’s perhaps for this reason that the Venezuelans have declined to undertake this task themselves, preferring to devote their time and energies to, oh let’s say, teaching music.

All snide remarks from my quarter aside, one of the major outcomes of a dinner hosted by El Sistema USA this evening was the sincerely stated need for more guidelines, and more specific, more concrete guidelines at that. I’m not certain how this can be accomplished, frankly. If Maestro Abreu himself has resisted the “systematization” of El Sistema as a fundamental element of the organization’s philosophy, we have to find some way to resolve this paradox. The whole thing is a bit like Schrödinger’s Cat, the idea of multiple states of being existing in simultaneous super-position until waveform collapse is effected through direct (i.e.: personal) observation.

Sorry. Maestro Abreu defines this more elegantly, as the idea of “ser no ser todavia” – or very roughly translated as “existing without ever concretizing.” Rodrigo Guerrero, the splendid International Affairs Coordinator, would be more succinct: “As soon as you can define something, it’s dead”, with the point being that the Fundación is very much alive.

There’s no answer to this, except to assume that the Fundamentals document will need to be as flexible, organic and adaptable as the organization that inspired it.

With apologies to Saxe, here’s a palate cleanser after the quantum mechanics.

And so these Fellows of Abreu
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

So oft in curricular wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about a “Sistema”
Not one of them has seen!

Thank you.

Quiero decir solamente que hicimos más que ver el trabajo de FESNOJIV, lo vivimos en Acarigua. El director, Roberto Zambrano, nos dio un tremendo desafío – para preparar un concierto en dos semanas, un concierto de las obras muy difícile. El primero ensayo, vi que había muchos niveles de músicos, entonces hicimos las partes más facil para que los principiantes pueden tocar, para incluirlos. Ensayamos muchas horas, incluso un día sin electricidad, sin luz y sin aire acondicionado. Y el concierto fue presentado en el gran calor, al aire libre, con perros y un borracho gritando. Pero fue una experiencia maravillosa. Siempre he entendido su idea, su idea de “tocar y luchar” – pero después el concierto, lo sentí. Habiamos luchado juntos, habiamos tocado juntos, y por esa razón, nuestros corazones éstán siempre conectados.

And I’m in Caracas for but five hours more, as I will be returning to Boston later today. The experiences here are a little too recent, too fresh to be placed in perspective, even with my temporary absence from the country, but some peripheral thoughts are worth a mention.

I’m going to stop using the phrase el Sistema. The Venezuelans don’t use it either: when they speak English, they say “the system”, which suggests that the continued use of the Spanish by anglophones is merely a pretension or conceit. This change is partly motivated by Dr. Abreu’s own distaste for the term, which he described as the result of the bureaucratic labeling concomitant with the receipt of federal funds, but also my personal sense of the inaccuracy inherent in the title. I stand by my previous entry stating that there are “systems” within FESNOJIV, but again draw the  important distinction between operational systems and educational ones. Clearly the organizational culture is a fundamental part of FESNOJIV’s activities in Venezuela, and plays a large part in its success, but if that is the “system” then such a title is a tremendous misplacement of emphasis.

If one thing is clear from my time in this country, it is that there are standardized philosophies, but no standardized curricula. There are operating principles, but no pedagogical frameworks. Every single núcleo I visited approached teaching in a different way, depending upon what resources were available.  There has been some standardization of repertoire, but this was explained as a function of what was available, as opposed to what was desirable. Ultimately, there’s no teaching “system”. Sorry.

Being North American, I understand the vogue of searching for or generating documentation. It’s a function of our standardized philosophies and operating principles, but to apply our rulers and our benchmarks to our Venezuelan counterparts is to do them a disservice and fundamentally misunderstand what has been accomplished here. Everything that was done in Venezuela, for better or for worse, seems to derive from one single  overriding directive: to make maximum use of minimal resources. Instead of cogitating for decades, building a perfect program with complete documentation, they acted under the simple idea that it’s better to do something now than everything much, much later. As the program grew compromises were made, with access prioritized over sophistication. It was more important to do something for everyone than everything for a select few.

And that, if anything else, is the key lesson from Venezuela: do something with what you have, but do it now.

But that doesn’t resolve the issue of the name. There’s a second lesson from Venezuela: in building this organization in a complete vacuum, Dr. Abreu and his team were able to build it with an extraordinary degree of inter-connectivity. There’s always a path for a musician, another place to play depending on their motivation and work ethic. Modulos feed into núcleos, núcleos into regional orchestras, regional orchestras into state orchestras and state into national orchestras. There’s always a next step right up to the Símon Bolívar Orchestras, something to aim for. And as musicians feed up, ideas feed down, as higher-level training begets more experienced and capable teachers that can return to state orchestras, the regional ensembles, the núcleos and the modulos. It’s the connectivity here that is the extraordinary achievement and strength of the organization. And so I propose, instead of el Sistema, another Spanish word: La Red. The network.

La Red. It’s worth seeing.