Classical Singer will not be including reports from Rome Festival Opera [Directed by Fritz Maraffi] in this issue or on our website. The last time Classical Singer magazine did a report on summer programs, we received poor reports from singers on RFO, and we reported them exactly as they came in.
For this issue, we received a few poor reports and then a flood of glowing reports, all of them sounding quite similar and rather defensive. It was very confusing. Then three e-mails came in from singers who had apparently forgotten to remove RFO’s ‘instructions’ before sending the e-mails to Classical Singer. This explained the mystery.
Apparently, an administrator at Rome Festival Opera had sent out form e-mails to participants (and teachers) telling them that they were to send CS the responses, but they were to blind copy RFO on the e-mails (which would remove the singer’s ability to be anonymous and inhibit adverse opinions). It also explained that RFO had actually filled in replies to some of the questions to “save time!” The e-mail suggested to the singers that Classical Singer magazine would purposely change their responses to make RFO look bad, and that CS only included good responses from advertisers (see text below).
Under the circumstances, we cannot accept the responses. Despite what RFO would like their participants to believe, we do not knowingly print untruths—either favorable or unfavorable—about any program whether they advertise or not. We feel that singers may have been unduly influenced by incorrect information about CS’s motives, and that the responses may not be genuine. It would seem that RFO’s administration is not familiar with CS’s policy of complete separation of editorial and advertising departments. We have been forced to exclude all responses about RFO, the negative and positive—with apologies to RFO participants.
For the record, we believe it is entirely appropriate for a summer program administration to encourage their participants to contribute to CS surveys on summer programs. Such participation allows a program to self-promote on a cost-effective basis, assuming the program generates goodwill with its participants. In the case of RFO, the program administration stepped over the lines of propriety by filling in answers, directing the nature of the participant’s response and discouraging candid and anonymous replies.
See for yourself:
Text of Rome Festival Opera Email:
Dear [singer]: Thank you for your help. What you have to say is very important. Your experience of living on your own with two young Italian members of the Rome Festival Orchestra, who were your friends, provided you with a rich, unique point of view. By performing [role] while living with wonderful young Italian friends, meeting their family, visiting sites and concerts together, you had the closest possible experience to what our charity wants to support. As the CS editor makes clear, you may write about what you experienced [sic] and only partially use the provided questions…If you delete questions, please be certain to leave the name of the program and when you attended. Do not delete the name of the program. Please hit reply button now. Replace Line “To:” by cutting and pasting email address on next line. We have added some answers to save your time. As per instructions from CS editor please do not answer all the questions, many of which are very petty. Please do NOT use the CC feature to send a copy to me. Make a copy to your “Sent” folder. Please email me a blind copy from your sent folder. I ask you to do this to make certain that CS does not misreport what you submit. In the past CS, under pressures from advertisers, has printed only negative comments about programs which do not pay for advertising and only positive comments about programs which advertise in CS. As a charity we place no paid advertising in any publication. Now please delete everything above and including this line.
A former faculty member at one of the programs for which we received many complaints wrote: “Sounds like there is a history of [a program director] offending people and getting off the hook. That is essentially what he told me, I think…when I was there. It wasn’t that direct but he did say that he had enough lawyers look at the offering contract that he felt secure in not being held liable for what people ‘thought’ they were going to receive instead of what was advertised. It is pretty vague and we all bring our pre-conceived notions of what we are getting with us in reading the document.”
The faculty member allowed CS to use the quote above if we also included the following: “I honestly have mixed emotions about the paragraph [above] being ‘used’ against [him]. It’s not that I condone nor endorse his actions. But, I have found that I cannot concentrate on the negative forces that I have to deal with and not have it affect my mental health. Therefore, I try to put aggravating things behind me, look for the positive elements in difficult situations, and realize that I don’t always satisfy people nor treat them nicely in every situation.” —received via e-mail
