Why We Need Contemporaneous

Every time we perform a piece we somehow manage to walk the line between performing music that we love and music that we want other people to hear and doing something that scares us a little bit. We take a lot of risks. When a group of people, each completely remarkable on their own, comes together for a specific idea, and if they do it for each other, then you get great music.

—Contemporaneous core member and violinist Finnegan Shanahan

Will Robin recently wrote:

. . . orchestral works that are large-scale – as in more than, let’s say arbitrarily, 30 minutes – are a seeming rarity in the 21st century. It’s due to the commissioning process: very few orchestras are going to take a risk and commission a very large work simply for orchestra. So most purely orchestral commissions, in the U.S. at least, are 5-25 minutes, depending on the type of commission, or you get your bigger chorus-vocal-soloists cantata thing which will ground half or all of your program (and, potentially, get staged as an opera too).

But what might be left out, then, is the opportunity for composers to write the instrumental symphony of our day. Or something like that.

In making his case, “Towards a 21st century orchestral canon,” Robin was fully on target in pointing to Andrew Norman’s “Play.” Thanks to the Boston Modern Orchestra Project, a risk-taking orchestra committed to new orchestral music, and its supporters, Norman has recently been able to report that, “after long long last, the recording of Play you all helped to fund back in 2013 is finally finished and ready for release!”

As Robin notes, there are very few orchestras willing to take risks on substantial new works. I don’t know about you, but when I hear a commissioned orchestral piece of shorter length, I’m often left feeling that the composer hasn’t had a chance to give full voice to his or her imagination. And worse yet, more often than not, the commissioned piece is performed live a handful of times at best, not recorded, and simply disappears.

There’s an issue allied to the one Robin poses: few established orchestras seem willing to take many risks on new music of any length. Certainly, established orchestras should be encouraged to offer more such opportunities, yet I can’t help but think the opportunities from those quarters will always remain small.

I’m exceedingly grateful for the passionate commitment shown by so many superb musicians who’ve created and sustained small ensembles that commission and perform new works. In addition to savoring any fine new chamber work, I’m often set to dreaming: “what if” this composer were given a chance to compose for a larger orchestral palette? That such opportunities remain rare is frustrating, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

If we want to hear more orchestral music from today’s composers—of any length, and certainly larger scale—then we need to offer as much support as we can to the very few orchestras (chamber and full-size) positioned to make this happen. These are the orchestras with a demonstrated commitment to new orchestral music that are nimble enough—and adventurous enough—to take on larger scale new works.

Contemporaneous is one of those very few orchestras. Within its first five years of existence, Contemporaneous has performed a cornucopia of exciting works by today’s composers (including Andrew Norman), has commissioned over forty new works, and has released a fine recording of new works: Stream of Stars, The Music of Dylan Mattingly.

Sustaining an organization the size of Contemporaneous is no easy matter, yet that, to my mind, is where the future of new orchestral music lies. If you care about that future, please help Contemporaneous realize its dreams, and thereby ours. To donate, click here. (Your donation is tax deductible.) To learn more about Contemporaneous, click here.












19 thoughts on “Why We Need Contemporaneous

  1. Lucy M

    I love this post, Sue. Makes me realize how glad I am that I sent in my donations not just to Contemporaneous (multiple times!) but to the Cabrillo Festival of Contemporary Music, The Berkeley Symphony, Wild Rumpus Music, Switchboard Music Festival and others I can’t even remember right now, let alone the pile I still have on my desk to get to! But you made the case!

    1. Susan Scheid Post author

      Lucy: I’m really glad you wrote. I particularly appreciate that you, both here and elsewhere, have noted others among this all too small number of organizations that provide sorely needed orchestral opportunities for composers who are writing today.

  2. David N

    You know I’m a fan, and it was Contemporaneous who first made me think more, via you, about how much astonishing work is being done by young composers, and practitioners, in other countries we never get to hear about. The pool of composers deemed performable by the big orchestras is alarmingly small, and many of the ‘names’ aren’t half as good as three to whose music you’ve introduced me.

    At the same time, I wonder about the length. Initially I reckon a young composer should show his or her mettle in a 10-15 minute piece. The symphonies can come later. Shorter works can be more easily programmed together, preferably interspersed with shortish 20th/21st century classics. Maybe the era of the more-than-30-minute symphony is over? Adams has done it again and again mostly in that timescale.

    I’d like to see Contemporaneous tackling all eras – this is the thoughtful pick and mix new listeners seem to like. Too many young musicians seem to me exclusively interested in the here-and-now without looking to the timeless. At the same time, as we’ve discussed here, it’s now an anything-goes era, so that ‘contemporary’ actually becomes as meaningless a term for defining new music as ‘classical’ does for the ‘old’.

    Would also be good to see more Contemporaneous folk engaging with your food for thought here. I trust you’ve got them listening more widely…

    Season’s best to you both – a card will not now reach you until after Xmas itself, I fear.

    1. Lucy M

      David – The idea that young composers should be able to prove their mettle in shorter time spans than an older composer (let alone a composer from the past,) sets up the orchestra piece as a place to show off one’s chops rather than as a setting to express something that demands to be told through an orchestral palette. And sometimes what needs to be expressed cannot fit into the shorter timeframe that is always imposed on both young composers, as well as older contemporary composers, unless they’re the most well-known and successful in the classical world (i.e. John Adams, Corigliano, Glass etc.)

      As for whether young musicians in an ensemble like Contemporaneous listen and think about music other than new music – they most certainly do. They would not reach that level of musicality if music was not an essential part of their existence – and had been since they were little kids. The musicians of Contemporaneous, and most other fantastic new music ensembles, are omnivorous in their listening – which includes music of all genres, and music of all eras. But the mission of Contemporaneous is to play music by living composers only – there are plenty of other ensembles out there who will intersperse new music with old to make it more palatable/accessible to ears not used to hearing it, or to make the connections that would not have been obvious. But one day I hope you’ll get a chance to attend a Contemporaneous concert – maybe someone will bring them on tour to London! – and you’ll feel the excitement in the predominantly young audience to be participating in the creation and sharing of music new to everyone.

    2. Susan Scheid Post author

      David: Your point that “the pool of composers deemed performable by the big orchestras is alarmingly small, and many of the ‘names’ aren’t half as good as three to whose music you’ve introduced me” is central to my own thoughts, too. Dylan Mattingly, in one example we both know, has already composed an orchestral piece of more than 30 minutes length (Atlas of Somewhere on the Way to Howland Island) that I felt knocked the socks off some premieres by “name” composers I’ve heard. My response to this is “I WANT MORE,” and the best way I can see to make that happen is to support those organizations that are most likely to provide the opportunity for him and others of his caliber to write for orchestra more often.

      I do want to emphasize that, for me, length is not the benchmark. I think that Robin’s point is important, though, and I agree with Lucy’s statement, too. I would add that, in the hands of a skilled composer, a piece will find its appropriate length, but, as Lucy notes, the large orchestral commissions for the most part don’t offer other than a few “name” composers that chance.

      My own primary point here is that there is a crying need to provide many more opportunities for up and coming composers to write for an orchestral palette. I’m reminded of a conversation after hearing a chamber opera by an up and coming composer. I was impressed, as I have been in listening to others of his compositions, by his skillful, evocative sense of orchestration and expressed, among other things, the hope that there would be another chance to hear the opera soon. The person with whom I was speaking enthusiastically ventured the possibility of a performance with a piano reduction. As this was said with the best of intentions, I held my tongue, but my thought was, no, no, no, this work deserves to be heard again whole, not in pale part. What I fear is that composers of this caliber who are not yet “names” are simply not going to get that opportunity unless we nurture the rare organizations, like Contemporaneous (and BMOP, Cabrillo, and others Lucy M has named), who have ventured boldly and are willing and able to offer that chance.

      To your point, “I’d like to see Contemporaneous tackling all eras – this is the thoughtful pick and mix new listeners seem to like.” A couple responses, and they are contradictory. First, to my mind, a strong raison d’etre for Contemporaneous is to fill a yawning gap—not only in terms of providing a platform for works of current composers, but also by providing a larger orchestral palette for creation of new works. I recall speaking with a Bard professor at one of the concerts and expressing my appreciation for his support of the group. He quickly corrected me on this, saying, oh no, they’ve done this all on their own, because we didn’t offer anything here that met this need. All that said—and Contemporaneous has done something akin to this, featuring works by established living composers alongside the new—I would find fascinating inclusion of works by composers who are influences or inspiration for the new works presented—to listen to the new works in that context—and for the composers to talk a little about that, too. (From the profiles on the blog here, we’ve had a chance to learn something about those inspirations and influences, and it’s clear just from that glimpse how wide and deep they are. I’m also aware, as one specific example, that Tamzin Ferré Elliott, whose work will be one of the three premiered in the 5th anniversary concert this coming March, is, among other things, a singer and lover of traditional folk music from the Caucasus.)

      As for listening more widely, you know, these composers and musicians are the ones who’ve got me listening more widely, not the other way around, though I like to think we learn from one another, too. On joining in the discussion here, see below, which I know you’ll appreciate.

      May your holiday season be bright, and I join with Lucy M is hoping that, sooner than later, we’ll have a chance, all of us, to meet up at a Contemporaneous concert!

    3. Dylan Mattingly

      Hi David, always great to read your comments here!

      I can tell you from experience that there is nothing more stifling to my own creativity than the time limits imposed particularly by larger/more established organizations on commissions. Almost none of my favorite music is under 20 minutes long, and I don’t think that’s coincidental. I love music that has time to convince listeners of what it’s trying to say. Think of something like Beethoven’s Eroica — 45 minutes of E flat, and when you’re finished listening, you can’t help but be on the same page. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy for orchestras: if you commission 10-15 minute pieces from young and living composers, you’re going to get music that is less fulfilling than the longer pieces you program (by older/deader composers), and then you can justify programming shorter works by living composers because they don’t have the depth of the dead composers who write longer works.

      The fact is, why would I be writing music if not to say something as strongly as possible, if not to give the audience the best experience I can possibly give them? I think the only reason the age of the more-than-30-minute symphony would be ending is because they’re not being commissioned, and composers, with few commissions and hence little-to-no power in their relationship with commissioners to fight for what they really want to write (and for the best possible music) have to yield to this model. In Contemporaneous, it is our goal to not say “no” to composers, to allow them to write the music that they actually need to express, the transformative type of art that comes from the necessity of an idea that can no longer be contained — and I can think of very few pieces of music that fit that description and are under 15 minutes long.

      Which is not to say that writing a life-changing 15-minute-or-less length piece is impossible, but there is no doubt that it is far more challenging to do than writing a great piece with more length. To assume that young composers must prove their mettle in a 10-15 minute piece I think is a mistake, as it assumes that this would be an easier task than a longer piece. I’d rather see a model where young composers are encouraged to explore their ideas in their most naked likeness, and that the art of writing a shorter piece (particularly for orchestra, which because of its size is not well served for short music, setting up an expectation
      (both metaphorically and quite literally in the development of musical ideas) of grandeur that is then not met) is something that composers, at the height of their careers, with magnificent deftness of orchestration and clarity, can show that they can pull in an audience in just 15 minutes — a remarkable feat!

      I think there is a false equivalence between language and music here that plays into the problem. The clarity and simplicity of language, particularly when it comes to persuasive writing, is of the utmost importance. In an explanatory art like language, the goal is not immersion but explanation. Nietzsche said that he can say in a single aphorism what it takes others an entire book to say. But to assume that this competitive diminution can or should be applied to music non-metaphorically is a mistake. Music is not experienced as an act of understanding, music is an emotional journey through time, a way of side-stepping language so that something can be felt from one person to another, not explained. It is a transference of a world from one person to another, and that wholeness, that totality of experience that is expressed in music, is not helped by a fetishization of brevity — and I think that comes straight from the literary world.

      As to Contemporaneous tackling all eras: I can safely speak for everyone in the group when I say that all of us listen to tons of music from all across history (and the world). The goal in Contemporaneous is to present music from this moment — a specialization in a way, although to consider the musical world as a whole and to what our audience has access, we provide simply a tiny dent in the critical mass of masterworks from the past with masterworks from the present. Indeed, music from the now can be differently engaged than music from the past — we play music that is written to express worlds and people that the members of our audience come into contact with every day. The timelessness of past music cannot be denied, but neither can our distance from older worlds. I have a degree in Classics, and my constant study of the ancient world provides nothing but insight for me into the modern world, but the interest is always a matter of perspective. How can the past give us a wider lens, a bigger scope with which to view ourselves and our planet, alive right now? But the necessity of giving voice to the actual experience of this world as it is right now, through music, is in my opinion perhaps more important, and it is underserved. Members of Contemporaneous play and listen to all types of music. But Contemporaneous is about presenting the music and ideas of the present moment, and I don’t find that to be too small a task. Moreover, it is not our goal to present the “here and now” at the expense of “the timeless.” Indeed, it is our goal to promote the creation and present the timeless works of the now. We believe that people, if bestowed with an absolute trust and hence an absolute responsibility (to beauty, to timelessness), can create the most incredible things. And it is our duty to foster that creation and bring the best possible music about this world to this world.

      1. Susan Scheid Post author

        Dylan: I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts from the composer’s point of view and insights from your direct experience on the issue of commissioning. Your comment on the “self-fulfilling prophecy” definitely strikes a chord with me. I’m reminded (if you’ll forgive an analogy from the literary world) of the difference between writing a short story and a novel. They’re actually quite separate art forms that take different sets of skills and techniques to write. Alice Munro, that consummate writer of short stories, didn’t feel able to write successful novels—and I think her assessment of the one she did write is correct. Some writers are brilliant artists of concision (I think immediately of Lydia Davis); others do their best work long-form (David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas comes to mind).

        I, too, love big orchestral works. (Among my favorite composers, after all, are Britten, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and Mahler.) I believe many composers writing today have big orchestral works “in them”—and, in fact, their creative visions would be best realized that way. The question then becomes, where are the platforms for getting such works commissioned and performed? I don’t think we can expect the “established” orchestras to provide anywhere near sufficient opportunities. It’s even possible it is at times detrimental: the stakes are so high the tendency might be to play it safe.

        Particularly in light of the ensuing discussion, I feel grateful for David’s original comment, which, along with Lucy’s and yours, provide such useful perspectives for thinking about the issues. I think what may be needed, above all, is orchestral laboratories in which composers can feel free to experiment, take risks, fail, and try again. To move to the literary analogy again, it’s been observed that, unlike the best short stories, the best novels are often flawed. (Shostakovich’s first symphony is a dazzler, even though, to my mind, anyway, it’s not a perfect work.) Perhaps my impression on this isn’t accurate, but it seems to me that, currently, there are more opportunities for today’s composers to try their hand at writing operas than orchestral works. I worry, when I see the length of time it took for BMOP to raise the necessary funds and complete the recording of Andrew Norman’s widely lauded Play. (It’s the piece, after all, that spurred Will Robin to start his observations by writing, “It began with a not-so-shocking discovery: Andrew Norman’s “Play” might just be the best large-scale orchestral work of our still-young century.”)

        I worry also when I see how hard it’s so far been—relatively speaking to other music projects being promoted right now—for Contemporaneous to reach its fundraising goal. I grow concerned that we, as listeners, musicians, and composers—even those of us who are particular aficionados of new music—don’t recognize well enough the critical need for orchestral laboratories in which the imaginative reach of today’s composers can be given full expression in the orchestral realm. Just to name a few of which I’m personally aware: Sean Friar, in his Clunker Concerto, and Sam Adams, in Drift and Providence, have already shown that they can work on this scale, and I want to hear more. Lembit Beecher and Shawn Jaeger, in, among other works, their chamber operas, and Yotam Haber, in, among other works, “We Were All,” the work Contemporaneous recently performed and recorded, have each demonstrated elegant, nuanced creativity in their orchestration, and I’m eager—if they’re inclined this way—for them have the opportunity to write large-scale orchestral works. Thanks to Contemporaneous, Cabrillo, and the Berkeley Symphony, we’ve already had opportunities to see what you can do with an orchestral palette, and I look forward to hearing your piece for the LA Phil.

        Contemporaneous is to be commended—and supported to the full extent we can—for its continued dedication to taking the risks, financially and artistically, necessary to provide opportunities for so many composers both to create orchestral works and to have them performed and recorded.

    1. Susan Scheid Post author

      Brian: Yes, as it has developed, the discussion has raised and expanded on a number of interesting issues associated with commissioning and performance of orchestral works by today’s composers (and I must credit David, more than the post itself, for being willing to wade in there and offer his as-always thoughtful views, for they are what directly spurred so much lively discussion). I hope perhaps there will be a chance, post-holiday, for some discussion of this at GCAS, too, as I think many there, and notably you, as you work in this area, can bring particular insight to these issues. Meanwhile, have a happy holiday!

  3. Curt Barnes

    Belatedly. The only thing I want to add to the discussion is to point out that music long ago broke the mold on what was considered a “reasonable length” for a composition; Anton Webern and La Monte Young variously exemplified the fact that music was exploring temporal as well as aesthetic norms. Commissioning bodies have to heed the temporal elasticity that new art demands, neither assuming that a short piece should be cheaply acquired or a long one reserved for big names.
    Dylan Mattingly provided a very telling insider’s view of how time constraints could limit a composer’s imagination (and I agree with you totally about the Howland Island piece!). Though I’m sure a composer who can work within various limits (different time frames, the instruments of a typical orchestra, etc.) has a leg up on the commission front, it’s the orchestras doing the commissioning the could use more awareness and more flexibility. I think everyone would agree that 15 minutes of a dull composition seems infinitely longer than a brilliant one that lasts 40.

    1. Susan Scheid Post author

      Curt: Not to mention Wagner and Mahler, eh? I think your point about the economic drivers, “Commissioning bodies have to heed the temporal elasticity that new art demands, neither assuming that a short piece should be cheaply acquired or a long one reserved for big names,” is important to keep in mind, though I suppose I’d add that “older” art has demanded that, as well. I come back to noting that long or short isn’t really the benchmark for me, but rather how best to offer today’s composers more opportunities to write effectively for the orchestral palette.

      I want to go back to David’s comment that “Shorter works can be more easily programmed together, preferably interspersed with shortish 20th/21st century classics.” I’d very much enjoy a concert like that (and I suspect they’ve occurred, just not anything I’ve had the opportunity to hear–and, of course, that has an additional benefit for listeners: if you’re not taken with one piece, there will soon be another). At the same time, I really do long for more opportunities to hear substantial orchestral works from current composers who appear to have that capacity. The question then becomes how to get from here to there. That, perhaps obliquely, goes to your point, “I think everyone would agree that 15 minutes of a dull composition seems infinitely longer than a brilliant one that lasts 40.” I’ve heard more than a few shorter orchestral compositions that are entirely unmemorable, though I have to say that the converse can also be true. I am not ready to say that, had such composers been given more leeway, the resultant work would have been better–sometimes yes, sometimes no.

      I do, though, absolutely believe, as I’ve noted earlier, that there are composers (some of whom I’ve named) who have more substantial orchestral works in them. I’m eager for those works to have the chance to be created, heard, and recorded far more often than appears to be the case at present. They don’t have to be total successes; indeed, perhaps the first attempts won’t be ready for the “big stage,” but how else can composers hone their skills in writing large orchestral works without significant chances to compose such works and hear the works performed (MIDI just doesn’t cut it)? You know, this reminds me of our discussion in GCAS about conductors, that their instrument is the orchestra, and all the ramifications of that.

      It’s a question, as you’ve noted, of building in more flexibility, and I would embellish that with the need to create more opportunities. Some of the “established” orchestras (the LA Phil’s Green Umbrella program and the NY Phil’s CONTACT! series are a couple of examples) are making promising efforts, but I can’t imagine, given the pressures on these organizations, that these initiatives will ever be important to what they do. Perhaps more significantly, it’s hard for me to think that the large “established” orchestras are likely to encourage and promote risk-taking (and by this I don’t mean sheer novelty–I sometimes think the most novel thing a composer might attempt is to compose something truly original in sonata form!) of the kind needed to produce exciting new works–works that really, truly, take us somewhere on every level. For that, it’s my belief that organizations like Contemporaneous, BMOP, and the Cabrillo Festival, as examples, are essential.

      1. Curt Barnes

        Susan: Thanks for the response and additional provocative thoughts. I guess what I was getting at is a sui generis approach to commissions, seen from an ideal point of view. Lacking practical experience, I’m trying to use reason. If I were an orchestra I would seek out the composers for the quality of their work and the promise implicit in future work, natch, and then would consider what lengths those composers generally need to do their best work. (a consideration that may involve actually talking to them!) Orpheus Chamber Orchestra has commissioned work from Alex Mincek, for example (and also Marc Mellits and Andrew Norman, two other composers I’ve liked), and his work is usually quite dense and concentrated. His relatively short pieces are often strong and memorable.* If, however, they were to commission work from someone writing like John Luther Adams, in an atmospheric, post-minimal style, I’d expect them to look for a longer piece, since it seems that work needs a “larger canvas,” as it were. The character of the composer’s best music should determine the length requested, in other words, not his/her fame, or consideration of how the piece would fit in a predetermined program. With that as my ideal mindset, I may have to face practical compromises, but that would at least be the point of departure.
        *I don’t know the actual length of Mincek’s commissioned piece, since I didn’t make the performance and Orpheus hasn’t released any CD of it, alas.

        1. Susan Scheid Post author

          Curt: Oh, yes, very good point, and with many apt examples. It’s worth noting here who brought us John Luther Adams’s Become Ocean: the Seattle Symphony. Off I go on a potpourri of asides, now, but this reminds me of the demise of the Spring for Music festival, which valued above all inventive programming and brought Become Ocean to New York: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/26/climate-change. I also read in today’s Times that The Nutcracker brings in 30% of the New York City Ballet’s annual revenue:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/arts/the-nutcracker-still-out-dazzles-hansel-and-gretel.html?_r=0. Tommasini makes an excellent case for the greatness of its music, yet it’s also a reminder of the economics underlying programming choices. Last not least, Zachary Woolfe’s article on the New York String Orchestra, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/arts/music/new-york-string-orchestra-presents-mozart-at-carnegie-hall.html?ref=music, makes some notable points about uninventive programming for an orchestra that should be a prime candidate for a program of at least a mix of newer and older works.

  4. David N

    I feel there were more than a few misunderstandings above, though my superficial statements encouraged much eloquence so I’m pleased about that. I was only really talking about the starters-out, though perhaps one shouldn’t be prescriptive about the length. It’s the notion of a taster: if a composer doesn’t have anything interesting to say in under half an hour, why would that make one think that he or she could redeem that with more time? I think I can tell within a short span if there are ideas, shapes, original orchestration (true of about ten per cent of the new pieces I hear). So then, quickly, we move on to more. I agree totally with Curt’s statement that a short piece can feel long and vice versa, but if you’re talking about expensive commissions to showcase brand new talent, the limit isn’t a bad way of starting.

    I’m also not arguing for mere ‘accessibility’, horrid word, in a mixed programme of short works – far from it. The ones I’ve heard have not been compromising in any way.

    But don’t get me wrong, I’m delighted about Contemporaneous’s courageous and clearly successful agenda. And as you know I’ve pushed (so far unsuccessfully) to get Dylan’s work(s) performed in the UK. So I know what a closed shop it can be.

    1. Susan Scheid Post author

      David: It’s been a fascinating and thought-provoking discussion, one of those where the comments have moved way past what I wrote in the original post. I’m grateful to you, and to everyone else here, for weighing in. For certain, my own thinking about what I value, what I hope for, and what and where those hopes might best be realized, has been enriched by everyone’s comments. I very much look forward to our continuing conversations in the year ahead.

  5. hilarymb

    Hi Susan – Happy New Year to you and yours and to Contemporaneous … who are breaking the boundaries and mould … creativity is what we need and they are doing just that. Great to be able to listen to their thoughts and ideas for their future …

    Good luck to them and thanks for posting … have a happy 2015 – cheers Hilary

  6. angela

    What an amazing discussion…and yes, almost immediately thoughts went to the demand for concise brevity in language today as a way to keep pace with the deminishing window of concentration digital platforms has programmed with each new generation. It is agreed that every art form has its own demands, ergo, it was wonderful to understand from a composer’s Pov.

    1. Susan Scheid Post author

      angela: So nice to see you here, and Happy New Year to you as well! Yes, wasn’t the discussion terrific? On the issue of brevity, I think of the commissions issue as stemming from economic demands, with the demand for all but the most well-known artists commissioned only for short pieces arising from a concern, however misguided, that they won’t “sell.” I want to hope it doesn’t have to be that way, but certainly concern about this is one of the things that led me to write the post. In that regard, I’m delighted to be able to report that the Contemporaneous fundraising campaign met its goal.

Comments are closed.