# Orchestras in Crisis: Outreach is Ruining Them



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114221/orchestras-crisis-outreach-ruining-them

Interesting article... Americanizing the orchestra... history of American orchestras... etc.

Familiar ground for us, but this article itself is only a week old.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for posting the article. It largely crystallises what I've read in recent years about the problems of the American classical music scene, and in some ways general problems all over the world.

I won't comment other than the following paragraph from the article is like a summary of what I've been saying on this forum for ages. And you too science, and others. That clash between listeners of either extreme - very conservative on one end, very radical on the other. The vocal minority, as I call it, which doesn't make things easier for the majority of listeners in the middle.



> Many in the managerial class, especially those who first trained as musicians, care deeply about the rich, variegated, and complex history of classical music, but can find no practical way to offer that history to like-minded patrons. Instead they work with a caricature of the *audience*, dividing it into* two classes*, one made up of *younger, adventurous listeners willing to try anything*, and the other composed of* older, problematic ones, who want only Beethoven's Fifth night after night.* But the serious listener, who is adventurous and critical, open and discriminating, does not fit into either of these categories. Among the most worrisome signs for the orchestra is how little concern there is for listeners who care deeply about the infinite variety of orchestra music-Mozart, Mendelssohn, or Lutosławski-but have little use for syncretic hybrids. As always, there is an economic explanation for the marginalization of the serious listener: interesting repertoire takes more time to rehearse, it is difficult to market, it cannot be repeated with the frequency of more popular fare. And serious listeners are resistant to the* basic ideological sleight-of-hand* behind so much programming: they do not believe that trivial music is worth the same investment as the core repertory, and so they vote with their feet and stay home. This gets them marked as fickle supporters of the civic institution.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Thanks for posting the article. It largely crystallises what I've read in recent years about the problems of the American classical music scene, and in some ways general problems all over the world.
> 
> I won't comment other than the following paragraph from the article is like a summary of what I've been saying on this forum for ages. And you too science, and others. That clash between listeners of either extreme - very conservative on one end, very radical on the other. The vocal minority, as I call it, which doesn't make things easier for the majority of listeners in the middle.


I hate to say it, but I don't believe there is a solution. I don't know about the situation in Australia or Europe of course, but in the USA it seems to me that there are just too many orchestras and not enough money. Perhaps more money can be found and it'll turn out ok, or perhaps some orchestras can get cheaper, but likely there'll just be fewer orchestras in the future.

OTOH, I'm pretty confident about the near future of western classical music globally. In the US, the largest and wealthiest cities will continue to have great orchestras, and the number of orchestras in China is going to increase faster than the closing of orchestras in the USA.

One thing the article doesn't touch on is the effect of recorded music. Whenever a big name orchestra comes to Seoul and decent tickets are around $400, I almost always decide I'd rather buy about 20 decent CDs than hear that one concert. The only exception is if they're playing something that I really want to hear. But why should I drop that much money for a couple hours of music when there's all that music on the Tzadik label waiting for me to explore?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> I hate to say it, but I don't believe there is a solution. I don't know about the situation in Australia or Europe of course, but in the USA it seems to me that there are just *too many orchestras and not enough money.* Perhaps more money can be found and it'll turn out ok, or perhaps some orchestras can get cheaper, but likely there'll just be fewer orchestras in the future.


What I put in bold is what I've read about the USA in some other sources. Some of these are like about the situation before the GFC. All that did was make the problem apparent, so maybe its a plus not a minus. The system there was riddled with inneficiences and wastage of money. The USA, to my knowledge, was one of the places where management of funding of classical music, of orchestras, was the worst in the world. Australia is much better, with the Australian Chamber Orchestra being world's best practice in terms of having a funding model that's sustainable. However even here we are starting to get similar problems. Its a worry.

But I can't comment about Europe. My view of that is that the broad issue is that the EU will probably dissolve at some point in future. Germany is propping up everyone else there. This affects everything, including the arts and music. Other than that, I can't comment.



> ...
> OTOH, I'm pretty confident about the near future of western classical music globally. In the US, the largest and wealthiest cities will continue to have great orchestras, and the number of orchestras in China is going to increase faster than the closing of orchestras in the USA.


I wouldn't even bet on the bigger cities in the USA, their flagship groups surviving. The massive salaries given to conductors and soloists (the "stars"), and the discrepancy between those few at the top and the majority of musicians who are basically scraping by financially, well its a problem. As the article says, this can't be justified in the long term. Its basically killing the live classical music scene, in terms of flagships orchestras, in the USA.



> ...
> One thing the article doesn't touch on is the effect of recorded music. Whenever a big name orchestra comes to Seoul and decent tickets are around $400, I almost always decide I'd rather buy about 20 decent CDs than hear that one concert. The only exception is if they're playing something that I really want to hear. But why should I drop that much money for a couple hours of music when there's all that music on the Tzadik label waiting for me to explore?


Well how about the thing that if you don't have an orchestra performing live - say it all goes belly up - then what you got is ad hoc groups assembled to do recordings. There was a lot of ad hoc things going on before professional orchestras emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Maybe we're going backwards, but its probably not a big deal since we got a huge amount of recorded legacy already.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Maybe we're going backwards, but its probably not a big deal since we got a huge amount of recorded legacy already.


Yeah. It's just a matter of the cruelties of reality. The classical tradition was formed under technological and social conditions that no longer apply. The orchestra, opera company, ballet company - it may be destined to go the way of the jazz big band.

Nothing lasts forever. It may be time for some Buddhist reflection.

Of course this doesn't mean that we need to go down without a fight. It may turn out that economic growth over the next couple of decades solves this problem permanently, so that orchestras become so affordable that many more cities have them.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Handel would enjoy this thread. It's fascinating to read about "massive salaries" for stars as if this was something new.

Basically, classical music has always been a status symbol. Unfortunately, we no longer seem to have the supporters who can join in on the flute or the baryton these days. One of the interesting things about 18th Century British music clubs was that you could turn up to a concert with your instrument and join in. Somebody like Avison dumbed down Scarlatti so that the Geordies could play it in these circumstances. Maybe what we are going to see is more amateur music making and less professional.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> Yeah. It's just a matter of the cruelties of reality. The classical tradition was formed under technological and social conditions that no longer apply. The orchestra, opera company, ballet company - it may be destined to go the way of the jazz big band.


Well that's what I meant, basically. I think in terms of the USA, I read somewhere the annual maintenance costs of the Lincoln Centre in New York. I was pretty shocked. A huge sum, can't remember exactly the amount, and I'm talking about just maintaining the building, it was not including anything to do with performances put on there. But that was built in a better economic time (about 1960's or so?). The post war era in America was a period of huge economic boom. In the 1950's and '60's it was one of the most prosperous places in the world. And as the article points out, a lot of European emigres went there, including of course a large Jewish contingent. So they wanted to hear their music, a good deal of them would have prospered in their adopted country and donated, supported the arts, including music. Well those conditions are no longer. So you have places like the Lincoln Center now being white elephants, virtually.

The Nashville venue that the article mentions, well that strikes me as really lavish spending. What where they thinking? Its just a white elephant, that's what it appears to me from what the article says. I mean running an orchestra or a venue to house it is like any business. You don't expand if you don't have some sort of forward plan. I am totally flummoxed by this but in a way I'm not. This type of inneficiency has been the hallmark of the American scene for decades now.



> ...
> Nothing lasts forever. It may be time for some Buddhist reflection...


Or maybe getting back to the basics of economics and solid financial management?



> Of course this doesn't mean that we need to go down without a fight. It may turn out that economic growth over the next couple of decades solves this problem permanently, so that orchestras become so affordable that many more cities have them.


Well yes, I think the 'golden years' for the USA is over, and as I said things will change in terms of the political landscape in Europe too, I think its inevitable. However its like anything, the market goes through these peaks and troughs. The thing is for those who manage these orchestras is to plan well and know what's going on in the market and base things on that. Not the old ways of thinking, which is basically looking at past models there, which are no longer applicable.



Taggart said:


> Handel would enjoy this thread. It's fascinating to read about "massive salaries" for stars as if this was something new.
> 
> Basically, classical music has always been a status symbol. Unfortunately, we no longer seem to have the supporters who can join in on the flute or the baryton these days. One of the interesting things about 18th Century British music clubs was that you could turn up to a concert with your instrument and join in. Somebody like Avison dumbed down Scarlatti so that the Geordies could play it in these circumstances. Maybe what we are going to see is more amateur music making and less professional.


Well as a fan of chamber music, going back to the old system of soirees in people's homes is something more financially affordable, on a small scale, more flexible in terms of budgets and so on. More local too. I have been to things like this in my local area in recent years. Its happening already! More power to it, I think this is good. Of course, if a musician doesn't fill a hall the size of Lincoln Centre for example, well that's going to mean he doesn't earn a huge amount of money.

But I mean something like paying $80,000 a concerto for Perlman, Hahn or Mutter - a handful of elite soloists who travel the world doing this - well that model is going to kind of go by the wayside. I can't afford to pay for those people when they come to town anyway, and frankly I don't really care for what they do here. I'd rather support local talent, people from here, make that trickle down effect happen.

As for Handel, I know he went through a few financial scrapes himself. I know the last big opera he planned was a flop, the crowds went to see John Gay's Beggar's Opera. The audience moved away from Italian opera in the UK back then. But eventually Handel bounced back with The Messiah, so he kind of moved with the times.

What I was speaking to to science above, its similar. This is basically a business, or it has to be seen and planned that way. If they don't want something, give 'em something they do want. If something isn't working, do something else. Sometimes it is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, there will be trial and error. But I think that this global model, its kind of just one way of doing things. Time to make things more local I think and maybe - horror of horrors! - think smaller. It might not make the agents and men in suits from the big end of town happy, but the fact is that music is about musicians and composers getting their stuff out to the public, right? Not about just the Mutters and so on, even though they are great, they are only a part of the picture.

If those people in Nashville built this magnificent hall, get Mutter there to play with their orchestra, but they are financially in the red, well its not going to last for long, is it? Its not going to be sustainable in the long term, maybe even the medium term, no difference how beautifully she plays that $80,000 concerto.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I think the problem is in seeing it like a business. Handel was able to run operas because he was sponsored by the Royal Academy of Music, he ran into problems because he was opposed by the Opera of the Nobility sponsored by Frederick, Prince of Wales - seen as the opera of the English. Neither company made a profit. When we look at e.g. the Aldeburgh festival, there is a long list of sponsors which makes it accessible to ordinary people.

I quite agree that local music making is a way to go, but as soon as somebody becomes any good, they move on. We have an excellent local Baroque group, but their musical director is about to go on tour with English Touring Opera - which is itself a charity attracting both lottery and Arts Council funding. They're doing a tour with Monteverdi's "The Coronation of Poppea", Cavalli's "Jason", Handel's "Agrippina" and Handel's "Music for Vespers". The Orchestra will be HIP. It's sponsorship that gets something like that going.

Even a local group can attract stars, they'll be bringing Emma Kirkby and Michael Chance to Norwich on Saturday and, yes, they're desperately trying to fill every seat just to make it look good.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Taggart said:


> ...
> 
> I quite agree that local music making is a way to go, but as soon as somebody becomes any good, they move on. ...


I think that's a big issue here, definitely. However ultimately how many top notch violinists can the world support? Or maybe even a country the size of the UK or USA? How many Mutters, Perlmans, Hahns are there around? Same with pianists or cellists. Then you got the less high profile solo instruments and numbers get smaller.

I am not so knowledgeable about the opera market today but it must be similar, I'd guess. There is a shrinking audience base, its becoming increasingly splintered and segmented, and at the top there isn't much room. Not everyone can be a millionare like the elite players. Then you got the fact that say conductors are all ageing. Some of the big names I mean. Guys like Mehta, Barenboim and Ashkenazy are in their seventies. Guys we often call "the younger generation" like Rattle and Salonen are past 50. Once a muso gets where he is, he tends to hang on there right till the end. So you got little room for succession and replacement. It simply doesn't work like this in non classical genres, or not as much. Certainly not for a guy who many see as just waving a stick. I am being facetious here but I could understand if the so called ordinary man in the street learnt how much someone like Rattle earns a year - probably between the one and two million mark? - and they saw what he does and they'd say "so what?" & in some ways I can understand it.

Its all become so detached and no longer as close to the mainstream culture. We've talked about this on other threads too. How low and high art became poles apart. The article mentions how in the 19th century, right up until 1945, you basically had orchestras doing what was called variety concerts. So you'd have an overture, an aria or two, a concerto and symphony (or bits of them). The concept of (or fetish with?) "the finished work" only became de rigeur in the early 20th century more or less, many symphonic composers music, from Mozart through to Bruckner where often premiered as a work in progress, one or two movements, thus fitting in for such concerts. So you had something for everyone, and it was a social occassion rather than a cultural one, or just as much social as cultural. It was more community oriented, basically.

This has all tended to go by the wayside as - a fact that the article points out - you got programming become more for the "serious" listener. But now that such listeners are becoming increasingly scarce and fragmented in their tastes, is there a place for the symphony orchestra, or is it basically a relic of the past that has reached its used by date? Do people really want to go there, or is it as pleasurable as chewing on cardboard for them? Is it like burning incense for the gods, an obligation at the temple of culture? Unless we're talking of more lucrative crossover type concerts, as well as playing of movie scores "live" which is an increasing trend. These are the issues here (but they overlap with recent discussions we've had, still its interesting).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

It's been an interesting thread. I entirely agree that orchestral musicians in the US are getting too much pay. I know, they want it terribly after all their toils, but orchestras in Europe aren't nearly paid as much as those in the US. It's likely the musician Unions that have put such high caps on the salaries. But I was talking with this one teacher at Peabody, and she thought that the US Classical Music World is going to have to change their idea on how much money the music is worth, because technically the money shouldn't be why they are in the business. Greed should not run musicians.

Perhaps making Conservatories/Music Schools more affordable could be a solution? After all, when you have a 100K+ debt from a Conservatory, you want to make a ton of money off the bat in an orchestra to pay it off, or else it's gonna be a _long _long process. Luckily, I won't be having that kind of debt in Undergrad right now, but in Grad School, I'll likely go into debt, depending on what my scholarship opportunity is.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/music/symphony-slashes-deficit-hopes-for-balanced-budget-in-2014-15-701299/

As an example of a mid-size metropolitan area American orchestra, consider the brief article above.

Incidentally, the Broadway series that failed, referred to in the article, was not part of the regular subscription series of concerts, but was something additional added to try to bring in extra money. The Pittsburgh Symphony still works on the old model of core repertoire / occasional non-mainstream pieces / and commissioned or "World Premiere" works.

I don't have access to actual budget figures, so I don't know how much of the 32 million/year is generated by subscription tickets, special events, the yearly European tour, CD sales, etc. I suspect a very large part of it still comes from grants and donations from wealthy local supporters and corporations.

The upcoming season features four world premieres/commissions/co-commissions and 16 20th/21st century works (not including one concert of music from "West Side Story" - one of only two compromises toward popularity in the season) in addition to those in a season of 21 concerts. Manfred Honeck only conducts 10 of those concerts, the rest are guest conductors. The visiting soloists are more heavily weighted toward newer and younger not-so-well-knowns than I've seen in quite a while.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

Bill Eddins in his blog _Sticks and Drones_ proposed the attached governance model in response to the implosion of the Minnesota Orchestra over the past few years.
http://www.insidethearts.com/sticksanddrones/2013/05/10/billeddins/13906/
I like it because it provides governance balance between musicians, management, large financial supporters (philanthropists, etc), and members of the public who want to be involved. Three committees - artistic, operations, and development - report to the board of directors. Each faction is represented on the committees and on the BoD.

The focus in the Kennicott article is on programming, but a healthy orchestra has a balance between all three of the elements (committees) above.

ps a "cross-blog" event about the MO's devastating work stoppage was held yesterday by 15 regular arts and orchestra bloggers. A list of their contributions is  here. I recommend the Peters post at the bottom of the list for an easy-to-understand analogy between replacement of world-class musicians with those willing to work for less, and the Miami Marlins (professional baseball).


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I would put it later than 1945. Certainly anybody growing up in the UK in the fifties and into the early sixties would have been exposed to a lot of "light pops" classical -good tunes from operas, waltzes, light ballet music - mixed in with genuine pop music. There is still a market for that as we can see with Classic FM. Somebody like Andre Rieu still manages to sel out (in every sense?).

Looking at it from a UK perspective, things got increasingly polarised in the 60's when we had radio 1 and pop became king. The demise of the light programme meant that teenagers could opt out of classical culture. When we look at some of the threads on here, we can see a an incredible polarisation between modern and older music and even between classical music and popular classical music. Is it because we are becoming increasingly consumers of music rather than creators?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think there should be more smaller groups tending (but not always) specialising in certain repertoire. More of these smaller groups than the large (singular) expensive orchestras that have their arms and legs pulled in all directions to play all sorts of music from the entire repertoire, that doesn't work.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Taggart said:


> I would put it later than 1945. Certainly anybody growing up in the UK in the fifties and into the early sixties would have been exposed to a lot of "light pops" classical -good tunes from operas, waltzes, light ballet music - mixed in with genuine pop music. There is still a market for that as we can see with Classic FM. Somebody like Andre Rieu still manages to sel out (in every sense?).
> 
> Looking at it from a UK perspective, things got increasingly polarised in the 60's when we had radio 1 and pop became king. The demise of the light programme meant that teenagers could opt out of classical culture. When we look at some of the threads on here, we can see a an incredible polarisation between modern and older music and even between classical music and popular classical music. Is it because we are becoming increasingly consumers of music rather than creators?


Well that mix of things, the variety concert format of the old days, doesn't need to be light things. Here is a recent program of the Australian Chamber Orchestra, which as I said earlier is said to be world's best practice in sustainability and financial management:

BACH (arr. Tognetti) Canons on a Goldberg Ground, BWV1087
LIGETI Etudes: No.7, No.10, No.11 & No.13 
IVES Scherzo, "Holding your own!"
IVES Piano Sonata, No.2 "Concord": The Alcotts 
BACH Keyboard Concerto in F minor, BWV1056
BRAHMS Piano Quintet

So you got some shorter works, bits of longer works or sets, and a long work performed complete to round off, Brahms which is like 40 minutes or so.

So this is what I'm saying, presenting people with a mix of bite sized things and longer things, and things from different eras. Its similar to how I described things as being before, and the article says the same thing. So, going backwards in a sense, may be one of the many ways to keep orchestras afloat. The old three B's plus something unusual (usually new or newer) as garnish, well that format is pretty much dead or on not as successful as it was in the past.

As for Rieu, what I like about him is his interaction with the audience and this is happening more and more at classical concerts I go to as well. You have musicians talking about the works, and composers as well if its a premiere of a new piece. You also got concerts where the conductor goes through a piece in depth, gives examples, talks of its history and the composer, and then they play it. A bit like some dvd's you can get about classical music and composers, but done live. People like this more interactive format, it makes things real, and it can also be relaxing, enjoyable and informative at the same time.

So there are options out there its just that things have to adapt, and the thing is that since arts funding tends to be scarce, you've got to spend it wisely and with the maximum impact in mind, not just serving some clique or in the interests of the few over the many. If they keep doing that in the USA, well its unsustainable in the long term, change will be forced on them if they like it or not.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Sid James said:


> You also got concerts where the conductor goes through a piece in depth, gives examples, talks of its history and the composer, and then they play it. A bit like some dvd's you can get about classical music and composers, but done live. People like this more interactive format, it makes things real, and it can also be relaxing, enjoyable and informative at the same time.


I like this approach. It got me thinking that maybe another bit of the answer is more music classes in schools, so kids get introduced to classical music (not just Western music either) earlier on. Then maybe even the outreach projects will be more effective.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

deggial said:


> I like this approach. It got me thinking that maybe another bit of the answer is more music classes in schools, so kids get introduced to classical music (not just Western music either) earlier on. Then maybe even the outreach projects will be more effective.


I agree. I'd like nothing better than for the conductor (or, if necessary, a player) to talk about the next piece for a few moments before playing it, and for the whole atmosphere to be more informal -- not necessarily noisier! I mean, we're there for enjoyment, not for a religious service.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2013)

The old audience is dying off. Literally. Literally old and literally dying off.

The solution is to get a new audience. You won't get a new audience by repackaging the music you used to play for the old audience. You'll only gain a few people who want the same thing the old audience wants. If those people are themselves old, they'll be dying soon. If those people are young, they won't have enough money to keep you going.

To get a new audience, you need to play new music.

This is not really complicated. It's just that all the people watching the old audience dwindle are scared of losing even more. OK. But you're losing them, anyway. So what's the percentage of hanging on to people who are going to be going away anyway? Plus, the management of orchestras is more than likely made up of people who are members themselves of the old audience. Everything is understood, everything is expressed, everything is valued in terms of the old audience. 

That is not a recipe for getting a new audience.

And maybe playing new music would also fail. But so what? It'd be worth the effort. And orchestras are failing anyway, so why not try something different?

Well, I suppose we all know the answer to that one.

Still. It IS easy. To get a new audience, play new music--unapologetically, aggressively. Never look back.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> Still. It IS easy. To get a new audience, play new music--unapologetically, aggressively. Never look back.


What type of new music should be played unapologetically and aggressively? Shocking noise stuff to give them tinnitus?


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Thanks for the article. This was my favorite part


> The musicians' faith in the music is not naïve at all. It is, in fact, the bedrock on which the orchestra was founded and on which it will survive. The core repertory of the orchestra from Haydn onward sounds better than it ever has. The "totalitarian" concert experience that Dare criticized is in fact countercultural, obliging listeners to explore humility through attention to unfamiliar ideas, without regard to their own immediate need for gratification. It has never been easier, owing to the Internet and other media, to deepen one's knowledge and enjoyment of classical music. Except for the cost of a ticket-which is admittedly too expensive for many listeners-there is nothing standing between people's desire to hear great music and the institutions that specialize in making it.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Is classical music dying?*

I am frankly no longer interested in "classical music is dying" threads. They run contrary to my experiences as a musician. Out of curiosity I sometimes check them out.

The vast majority of the living contemporary composers I am familiar with do not compose what is derogatorily labeled as noise music. One contemporary composer that I know is Mark Camphouse, who is on the faculty at George Mason University. He dose not live in an ivory tower and he wants to compose music where he communicates with the audience. I have addressed this issue and mentioned Camphouse in other threads. Links to some of them:

http://www.talkclassical.com/23588-top-mm-composition-programs.html#post411892

http://www.talkclassical.com/23209-desire-tonality-10.html#post403483

http://www.talkclassical.com/23155-should-we-subsidize-composers-2.html#post400257

http://www.talkclassical.com/23100-do-composers-have-any-3.html#post399371

I regularly perform with two groups, a concert band and a symphony orchestra. The band is rolling in money the orchestra is surviving by the skin of its teeth. The reason is management. The management team for the band is far better than the one for the orchestra.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

some guy said:


> The old audience is dying off. Literally. Literally old and literally dying off.
> 
> The solution is to get a new audience. You won't get a new audience by repackaging the music you used to play for the old audience. You'll only gain a few people who want the same thing the old audience wants. If those people are themselves old, they'll be dying soon. If those people are young, they won't have enough money to keep you going.
> 
> To get a new audience, you need to play new music.


 We go to a local Baroque group. They play "new" music - like unknown Baroque in a HIP style. The musicians are a mixture of ages. The audience is a mixture of ages because they are partly friends of the company and partly because we have a good classical scene here. We don't need new, modern music. People who do can go to different events. What we want is Baroque, lots of it, played loud and proud.

If you want the new stuff - fine. I hope you enjoy it. Don't make that an excuse to jettison the old. There's still a market for good music that people know and love.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

some guy said:


> Never look back.


no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Andre Rieu has an audience, clearly some young and old dig waltzes just as some young and old dig unapologetic new music and everything in between. But most people are raised on pop music so a case could be made for aggressively playing that at the expense of everything else.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The following (in green font) is an extract from an entry on the history of concerts headed "The Future of the Concert" which I copied from an encyclopedia I have. Its just one example of what I was saying before, how the problems we have today where emerging back as far as this was written, in the 1970's.

It's a pity that in some (or many?) cases orchestras where not managed in a way to deal with the reality as it was, or as it became. That's how it appears to me, reading the article which science posted as this thread topic. They adopted the head in sand attitude in maintaining the status quo and now we got the current conundrum, aspects of which could have maybe been averted or at least softened had we acted on knowledge of such realities? Well, if it could have been averted, since foresight (like hindsight) can be a tricky thing. But at least they should have tried to apply the basics of economic and financial management, of solid budgeting for example? Not spending money beyond your means, in an unsustainable way?

But as usual, its only when s*** hits the fan (pardon my bluntness!) that makes people get off their backsides and deal with the real problems, not deny the problem or cover it up and consequently make it even worse than it is.

The development of the concert having now been briefly sketched, it may be asked, What of the future? At the moment this is quite uncertain. When the earlier editions of this book appeared it was suggested that radio broadcasting might conceivably utterly destroy the concert. That fear has declined or disappeared, but another threat has taken its place in the greatly increased expense of orchestral concert-giving, due to the rising cost of living and the consequent increase in remuneration of performers, and indeed, everyone employed in any capacity. There is no longer money to be made from orchestral concert-giving. Except when there is a very large hall subsidies seem to have became a necessity. This applies on both sides of the Atlantic.

Source: The Oxford Companion to Music (London University Press, 1978).


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

deggial said:


> But most people are raised on pop music so a case could be made for aggressively playing that at the expense of everything else.


Most people are raised on baby food and formula milk - no reason therefore to eat anything else.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

deggial said:


> I like this approach. It got me thinking that maybe another bit of the answer is more music classes in schools, so kids get introduced to classical music (not just Western music either) earlier on. Then maybe even the outreach projects will be more effective.


Well when I was a kid, there where concerts during the week specifically for school children to attend, for free. That was a kind of outreach, I suppose. Now I know there is still outreach here, but what I was talking about was concerts geared at adults. So you have concerts where words are spoken about the music, to more or less depth. You also have, as you always had, pre concert talks put on a half hour before the concert starts where the works are talked about and their history and so on explained. But today people, with increasingly busy lives, have little time to go to those. So they are kind of summarising the pre concert talks and making it part of the concert.

This is something I have gotten a lot out of, even though I have been into classical on and off for a few decades now, I always get something out of these things, I always learn something new. They know what they are doing, they present it in a way to cater for all levels of music appreciation and knowledge. Its that inclusivity that fosters a new and relevant image for orchestras, not as places where you only go if you know classical music or the works played, but places where everyone is welcome to come at it as they like, from the level they are at. Its a shared experience after all, and I think this way is one way to make prospects improve for orchestras. Well, I do hope so, and evidence is that it is better in any case than the old ways that the article discussed. They're failing, big time. They're death.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Sid James said:


> ... Its just one example of what I was saying before, how the problems we have today where emerging back as far as this was written, in the 1970's.


Never mind the 1970's, the BBC assumed sponsorship of the Proms in 1927.

Part of the problem in the article, is undoubtedly the availability of easy credit which seduced a number of cities into overextending. This was part of what hindered solid financial management.

The current (on line) Oxford Companion makes the point that Jenny Lind could run a sell out tour with Barnum and Bailey promoting it and the closest thing to that in modern times has been the three tenors concert. Maybe the way to go is DVD and multicasting where a show is transmitted to a number of different theatres and is also available on DVD. I notice that the Peter Grimes on Aldeburgh beach is being promoted in this way.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Taggart said:


> ...
> Part of the problem in the article, is undoubtedly the availability of easy credit which seduced a number of cities into overextending. This was part of what hindered solid financial management.
> 
> ....


Exactly and that didn't only apply to spending in the classical music arena. You had those types of things going on in the endless party that was the 1980's but I think that was the peak of that excess. There was this mentality of spending money gained from loans/credit to cover old debts. It became a cycle, and a very vicious one at that. In the USA, this is how orchestras have been run for decades, even the big name big city ones. Its a recipe for disaster.

You also had things like consultants and other hangers on hired to supposedly improve things, and I think that scenario is like another way to kind of waste money on non essential, non core things. Here, you had the ridiculous situations of orchestras being renamed or rebranded to remove the word orchestra. This was all due to the consultants and image gurus. So Sydney Symphony Orchestra became the Sydney Symphony. I mean I find this silly. I am unclear what the reason was for this, other than most likely lining the pockets of the consultants, image and public relations guys. Its almost like some comedy sketch out of Monty Python.

Even though I have been quite negative on this thread, I think things will kind of become more natural and based on need and not greed and waste in the classical music scene. Its just like anything else, you make mistakes, and you've got to learn from them and move on. If lessons are drawn from all this I think in the long term things will be better and more efficient. It is a period of change for the industry and in small ways I already see those changes occuring here on the ground. This will continue although inevitably with change you will have casualties, you will have not only winners but also losers.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2013)

Taggart said:


> jettison the old.


Every time someone advocates for playing more new music, someone else comes up with this non sequitur.

I suppose that there may be some people who would advocate jettisoning the old. In Haydn and Mozart's time, that was certainly true. Today? Precious few, I would think. But as soon as someone suggests that more new music be played, the "no more old music" card is played.

It is not a face card, as is widely believed. It's not even trumps.

Orchestras are failing. Agreed.
Playing more new music might make them fail more. Agreed.
But they're failing anyway, and none of the current solutions are doing anything other than failing.
Playing more new music hasn't really been tried. Not for long. And not unapologetically.

We'll never know until we try.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

some guy said:


> Orchestras are failing. Agreed.
> Playing more new music might make them fail more. Agreed.
> But they're failing anyway, and none of the current solutions are doing anything other than failing.
> Playing more new music hasn't really been tried. Not for long. And not unapologetically.
> ...


I think we _will_ know before we try. Classical music audiences have proven over and over again that they're conservative, and will sooner attend an all-Beethoven program than a battle between Cage and Beethoven--and Cage doesn't even count as "new" music anymore, of course. The decline of orchestras has a lot to do with myriad social factors: from the economic downturn, to the rise of competing art and media, to declines in musical education, to whatever. I don't really think local decisions about repertoire are having much affect at all on attendance.

I'm of the opinion, however, that the creation and performance of new music is essential to having a culture worth having! If private donations aren't persuading orchestras to diversify their repertoire and specifically to give new music a hearing, the government should step in to provide incentives. Patronage is the only way, since the best art isn't necessarily popular--especially in the short term.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Well, here's my symphonic life in small town USA.

There are 2 Orchestras semi-nearby that I frequent.

The better one is in a much larger city (250,000+ people) and I have to spend $40 in gas, $10 to park and $50 for a ticket. So, it costs me $100 which unfortunately I don't have the ability to spend very frequently.

Now, there is a smaller orchestra nearby (town of 60,000+ people) that I've started to go see because tickets are $20 and it costs me $20 in gas to get there. No cost for parking, so it's $40.

The big orchestra plays like 14 or 15 shows, usually twice a month. 

The smaller orchestra does 4 or 5 shows, one every month or every other month.

I don't think either of these orchestras make much money judging by the cars I see the musicians driving, or they're shoes, etc. No Lexus's or BMW's or anything like that, maybe a Ford Taurus or a Hybrid.

Now for someone like me, small orchestras have to survive if I want to enjoy any live classical music.

Now if I could get tickets for the better orchestra in the larger city for $20 I might go more frequently. My other gripe with going to the better orchestra is weather. I don't know who decided on the Symphonic Season being in the winter, but when you live in a place where weather is completely unpredictable from September to May, driving 2 hours in sleet and snowstorms is not worth the trip. No one I know wants to deal with that, so the first thing I would do is move the season or make it year long. Once a month or something. Have some summer concerts which none of the orchestras around me do. Looking for something to do on a nice summer evening? Why not a nice outdoor concert? No, they all have to be in winter. Have your Nutcracker and Holiday stuff around Christmas for those who are closer by and willing to brave the elements but give me a chance of fair weather driving.

Now, I wish the smaller orchestra that is closer by had more than 4 or 5 dates a year because I would probably go more often. Now, I'm a younger person and usually the reason I don't go to all the shows is content. I want to hear Mahler, Sibelius, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, etc. If they play something "newer" I don't have any interest in going and not just because I personally don't care for it. 

I take friends (and dates) with me to every show I go too. Most of them know absolutely nothing about classical music. They are just normal 25-35 year old guys and gals from small town USA. Now, any girl I take loves when it's a Romantic work. Tchaikovsky or something similar, oh, they really enjoy it. But if they heard anything outside the box or "atonal", whether it's Webern or someone writing music today, they would never go out with me again. It's just the way it is around here.

I do think schools and outreach programs would also be a wonderful help.

Anyway, just my thoughts on small orchestras because that's all I have.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

some guy said:


> The old audience is dying off. Literally. Literally old and literally dying off.
> 
> The solution is to get a new audience. You won't get a new audience by repackaging the music you used to play for the old audience. You'll only gain a few people who want the same thing the old audience wants. If those people are themselves old, they'll be dying soon. If those people are young, they won't have enough money to keep you going.
> 
> To get a new audience, you need to play new music.


I do so agree. We must move on. Good composers of our own day must be encouraged. And just playing a standard repertoire in a conventional way will not enthuse very many.

However... 'new' music can also be music of the past reinterpreted, as is happening with the fashion for HIP baroque music. This is getting a new audience, for more obscure baroque composers & pieces. Forty years ago, even when the same music might have been played, it would have sounded very different. A lot of creativity is fostered by 'rediscovery' - look at the Victorian passion for the past which produced the pre-Raphaelites, or the eighteenth-century celebration of the classical era which nurtured Augustan poetry.

What classical music needs are fashion-gurus who can make it seem stylish, edgy, daring, rebellious, original, innovative - sometimes by promoting new music, and sometimes by repackaging an older product in an exciting way. (In that respect, I differ from you slightly: repackaging can help.)

Oh, and by the way, my understanding was that Taggart wasn't saying that promoting new music was bad because it meant jettisoning the old. He was simply saying that there is still a place for the old.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

realdealblues said:


> Now, there is a smaller orchestra nearby (town of 60,000+ people) that I've started to go see because tickets are $20 and it costs me $20 in gas to get there. No cost for parking, so it's $40.
> 
> The smaller orchestra does 4 or 5 shows, one every month or every other month.


The smaller orchestra sounds like the one I play with. It is probably a volunteer/amateur group.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> The smaller orchestra sounds like the one I play with. It is probably a volunteer/amateur group.


I wondered that myself. It's definitely possible.


----------

