State orchestras and multiculturalism in Singapore

Author(s):  
Shzr Ee Tan

State-sponsored orchestras organized along ideas about ‘ethnic’ affiliation have been emerging in Singapore since the 1980s. This follows the professionalization of its first symphony orchestra in 1979, and a strategic plan by the government to establish sister amateur orchestras rooted in the imagined Chinese, Indian and Malay traditions of the island’s multicultural population. This chapter examines the processes and results of sociocultural engineering through music. It pays particular attention to the application of the western symphonic model to small ensemble and solo traditions found or invented in the practice of existing South Indian, Southern Chinese, Indonesian and Malay performing arts. In this, orchestras—as flagship arts organizations—play important roles.

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-22
Author(s):  
AMANDA HARRIS

AbstractIn 1965, the Australian government and Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust (AETT) debated which performing arts ensembles should represent Australia at the London Commonwealth Arts Festival. The AETT proposed the newly formed Aboriginal Theatre, comprising songmakers, musicians, and dancers from the Tiwi Islands, northeast Arnhem Land and the Daly River. The government declined, and instead sent the Sydney Symphony Orchestra performing works by John Antill and Peter Sculthorpe. In examining the historical context for these negotiations, I demonstrate the direct relationship between the historical promotion of ‘Australianist’ art music composition that claimed to represent Aboriginal culture, and the denial of the right of representation to Aboriginal performers as owners of their musical traditions. Within the framing of Wolfe's settler colonial theory and ‘logic of elimination’, I suggest that appropriative Australian art music has directly sought to replace performances of Aboriginal culture by Aboriginal people, even while Aboriginal people have resisted replacement.


Author(s):  
Vēsma Lēvalde

The article is a cultural-historical study and a part of the project Uniting History, which aims to discover the multicultural aspect of performing art in pre-war Liepaja and summarize key facts about the history of the Liepāja Symphony Orchestra. The study also seeks to identify the performing artists whose life was associated with Liepāja and who were repressed between 1941 and 1945, because of aggression by both the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany. Until now, the cultural life of this period in Liepāja has been studied in a fragmentary way, and materials are scattered in various archives. There are inaccurate and even contradictory testimonies of events of that time. The study marks both the cultural and historical situation of the 1920s and the 1930s in Liepāja and tracks the fates of several artists in the period between 1939 and 1945. On the eve of World War II, Liepāja has an active cultural life, especially in theatre and music. Liepāja City Drama and Opera is in operation staging both dramatic performances, operas, and ballet, employing an orchestra. The symphony orchestra also operated at the Liepāja Philharmonic, where musicians were recruited every season according to the principles of contemporary festival orchestras. Liepāja Folk Conservatory (music school) had also formed an orchestra of students and teachers. Guest concerts were held regularly. A characteristic feature of performing arts in Liepaja was its multicultural character – musicians of different nationalities with experience from different schools of the world were encountered there. World War II not only disrupted the balance in society, but it also had a very concrete and tragic impact on the fates of the people, including the performing artists. Many were killed, many repressed and placed in prisons and camps, and many went to exile to the West. Others were forced to either co-operate with the occupation forces or give up their identity and, consequently, their career as an artist. Nevertheless, some artists risked their lives to save others.


Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Beane ◽  
Rebecca Buntrock

<p>The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is located on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. The Kennedy Center is home to the National Symphony Orchestra, the Washington National Opera and The Suzanne Farrell Ballet. In addition to being the nation's busiest arts facility, the Kennedy Center is also a "Living Memorial" to President Kennedy. The south expansion of the Kennedy Center, known as the REACH, provides much needed educational and rehearsal space, as well as a pedestrian link to the nearby Memorials.</p><p>The new structure combines practicality, versatility and innovation. Each surface and space created is unique, forming complex geometries and large span to depth ratios. The cast-in-place concrete structure is exposed on the interior or the exterior, including three white concrete pavilions rising out of the landscaped substructure. The pedestrian bridge connects the Kennedy Center to the river with over a 35-to-1 span to depth ratio. The REACH is scheduled to open in the Fall of 2019.</p>


Author(s):  
James Herbert

This chapter discusses the separation and independence of the AHRB from the HEFCE. In 2001, through the aid of Bahram Bekhradnia, the AHRB gained autonomy from the HEFCE. At the beginning of the fiscal year in April 2001, the ARHB became a company limited by guarantee. In September of the same year, the organisation gained legal status as a charity, hence affording it certain tax advantages. The newly independent company and charity took on new trustees, however it retained its broad responsibilities. It also took on the responsibility for producing its own audited Statutory Accounts. At the same time, the organisation's staff formally transferred to the employment of the ARHB and in the following year additional staff were recruited. In the month of October, the organisation signed a ten-year lease contract on its new office in Whitefriars Building in Bristol. In addition, the organisation was also attaining full realization of its programmes and objectives. It formed three award schemes including the Research Leave scheme. It also created the Fellowships in the Creative and Performing Arts. In addition, the organisation also formed new funding schemes and in 2002, upon the approval of the government, the Research Council funded projects throughout the UK. In sum, as Chief Executive David Eastwood puts it, the ARHB was achieving independence and operating in ways which still mirrored those of the research councils.


2020 ◽  
pp. 129-154
Author(s):  
Michael Sy Uy

This chapter examines the Ford Foundation’s predominantly economics- and finance-based expertise, and the way it sustained the country’s largest and most expensive performing arts institutions: orchestras, operas, and conservatories. Ford accomplished its goals primarily through matching grants and endowments, hoping with matching requirements to diversify organizations’ funding sources and expand the public’s commitment to local arts. Based on the expert advice of economists and administrators, Ford intended endowments to be a permanent source of income for orchestras and conservatories, if they managed the invested principal properly. In practice, however, wealthy individuals on boards of trustees for institutions such as the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the Juilliard School solidified their personal, social connections to elicit five-, six-, and sometimes seven-figure gifts. In general, ordinary citizens and the local community did not participate, and as a result, broad-based support never materialized. Orchestras and conservatories came back knocking on the foundation’s door again and again.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document