The recent decision by Arts Minister Peter Garrett to close down The Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM) in order to replace it by Australian Institute of Musical Performance (AIMP), run by the University of Melbourne, is so nonsensical that it must be fishy.
There is no question that the ANAM “finishing school” excels at what it does. Its graduates consistently fill senior positions in all our orchestras, win all the important national competitions most of the time, win some international competitions, and so on.
There is no doubt that its replacement, AIMP, has been planned “on the run”. Much of the description of AIMP has been lifted verbatim (or nearly so) from the ANAM prospectus. The start has now been deferred till July. In his Lateline interview on Tuesday, Mr Garrett couldn’t tell us where the new institute would be.
On its website, the University of Melbourne doesn’t have any details about the “transitional arrangements” that Vice Chancellor McPhee writes about. In his Hinch interview on Tuesday, Mr Garrett said he “doesn’t want to go into detail” to many questions — it’s reasonable to believe that the detail doesn’t exist.
It is absurd to think that MU can teach at this level. Despite the deserved prestige of MU, none of its teaching staff have a track record of consistently achieving the regular ANAM successes listed above. If they could do it, they would have done it already! It is not realistic to think that new teachers with the necessary track record can be recruited in time — there are very few of these. MU graduates seeking a performance career have in past years regularly sought admission to the ANAM ‘finishing school’ because MU has a different purpose.
So why has this happened?
In a conversation with me three years ago at a school function, the Deputy Vice Chancellor Kwong Lee Dow stated that it was MU’s aim for ANAM to be closed down and its budget and students incorporated into MU. Shortly afterwards there were some press articles suggesting this. Nothing happened at the time.
The only scenario that is believable is that MU VC Glyn Davis, the architect of the 2020 Summit, has made a deal with his friend Kevin Rudd to engineer the closure of ANAM in order to achieve what Lee Dow knew two to three years ago.
Maybe ANAM made MU look bad one time too many. Maybe the $2.5m pa was just too attractive. Mr Garrett’s rationale for this closure is spurious and not really believable — a technical breach of process, denied by ANAM, and ignoring its successes.
After the announcement that funding to ANAM would be cut, Peter Garrett mentioned on a few occasions that he was “continuing discussions with stakeholders”. Just who are the “stakeholders” Garrett has relied upon for advice? There are over 10,000 signatories to an online petition at http://www.anam.com.au and another 750 signatories to an open letter published in the papers last week. Are none of these people “stakeholders”? Are the musicians currently at the academy “stakeholders”? Not one person in the field of classical music has stood up publicly to support this move. Surely we are all “stakeholders” and ,as such,have the right to know who the architects of this decision are. At least then we would be in a position to understand why it has been made in the first place.
That Garrett acts so covertly in all of this, and has received so little public support from his fellow members of cabinet, indicates that we should be extremely suspicious of the whole process and demand transparency.
The only thing he has offered publicly is a patronizing and unconvincing father-know-best routine. Hardly reassuring. He says that he is “extremely confident” that he’s “made the right decision” and yet, in relation to year ahead, he won’t provide details because he doesn’t have any, and in relation to the last three months, he has all of the details and yet refuses to provide them.
All of this from a man who spent 25 years of his life imploring people to demand transparency and accountability from our elected representatives. Perhaps if ANAM and it’s vast number of supporters were able to turn up the volume he might be able to hear them.
Dear Rock Jeby – some of your comments are not quite correct.
It does not ‘overstate.. the fact ‘ when i write about ANAM graduates winning all the competitions, getting all the orchestral places etc.. How about the recent finals of the ABC Young Performer [YPA] – all 3 finalists were from ANAM, the top Australian in the Sydney Piano Comp [SIPC], MOST new members of WASO, MSO, ASO, ACO, ,,,,, Of course you are correct in stating ” in most cases, the majority of ANAM attendees will have already achieved a degree in music at a university before attending ANAM … so ANAM cannot be granted all the credit” – but the ANAM ‘Finishing School’ touch is what was required to get these graduates to perform @ a standard which truly sets them apart. The YPA and SIPC winners were not graduates – one is still in high school!
The ‘slurs against the teaching standards of MU..’ – the full time academic teacher / researcher – publisher / bureaucrat model that is required for the successful MU music school is just not the right type to drive the hothouse finishing school ANAM model. This requires the one- on- one coach immersed in a narrow career dedicated to performing and teaching at an international standard, and with numerous student performance opportunities.
It only “makes sense that the money from ANAM will be redirected into such a super-faculty of music” if the ANAM model can be replicated and improved in that environment. To pull the plug on ANAM when there are NO detailed plans for its successor deserts the current and prospective ANAM students. These students audition for a particular teacher who they expect will get them ‘over the line’ into a performance career. The new AIMP has been designed ‘on the run’ as a structure to remove ANAM’s funding – it has no other current function. To pull the plug on ANAM in this way makes no sense. There is an agenda here, and it has little to do with current and prospective ANAM students.
Apart from the sound reason given in your story it is also about the alternative use of the site. Local residents have been lobbying strongly to have ANAM moved. Located within the South Melbourne town hall complex it is a flower of beautiful musical genius surrounded by prime real estate and also historic subsidized housing terraces certainly a curious cocktail and one which some residents cannot stand. The power of local rate-payers driven by self-interest in the form of property values is irresistible to local politicians. Great site for redevelopment; silence from the politicans… oops! Oh no, more apartments!
Lionel Kowal talks about ANAM graduates winning all the competitions, getting all the orchestral places etc. That rather overstates the fact – perhaps it is the case in Victoria but not nationally. And in most cases, the majority of ANAM attendees will have already achieved a degree in music at a university before attending ANAM anyway, so ANAM cannot be granted all the credit.
As for the slurs against the teaching standards of Melbourne Uni as opposed to ANAM, one must remember that: (1) students are paid to attend ANAM, as opposed to having to pay to go to Uni; (2) there are no degree or even diploma programmes at ANAM – it’s all about practising and rehearsing all the time rather than writing essays or doing harmony exercises that are part of a more traditional music education. If MU provided the same music programme, the results would be the same.
Still, it galls that attendees at the Australian Institute of Sport are in a similar position to what those at ANAM enjoyed but those in the performing arts are forced to alter their future commitments.
With the Melbourne Uni Music Faculty – VCA merger happening at an increasing pace (and looking at future accommodation), it makes sense that the money from ANAM will be redirected into such a super-faculty of music.
Yes I have to support Lionel Kowal’s statements here. The facts are that ANAM HAS been successful nationally as he says. In my orchestra (WASO) 5 of our 6 most recent appointments came from ANAM. Furthermore 7 of the 9 woodwind appointments nationally were also ANAM alumni.
I also support his suspicions about something being very fishy about Garrett’s motives and methods. It’s as if he’s been given a very unpleasant task to do by Kevin Rudd come hell or high water. And he’s done it. The nature of Rudd’s commitments to Melbourne Uni should be investigated as the students have been and will be the unfortunate losers in all of this. None of this done in their best interests!