Monday, May 16, 2011

Divide & Conquer: Rethinking Orchestral Programming and Structure

Sarah’s post in defense of the orchestra as an established ensemble is very timely, especially considering how many recent articles have been addressing the financial situation of the modern orchestra and possible solutions (for example, see Anne Midgette’s blog post on the inherent difficulty of standardizing an operational design for the orchestra). It’s not surprising that the orchestra is on our cultural mind, especially with the news that the Philadelphia Orchestra recently filed for bankrupty protection.

The orchestra, as an institution, is suffering from several problems and I will not be able to adequately address them all in this post. However, here are some topics to start with: 1) The classical audience is a fractured audience, 2) The community is a changing concept, 3) Conductors, music directors, and top level administrators don’t need exorbitant salaries.

First of all, we need to address the reality of classical music serving an eclectic and fractured audience. When you go the symphony these days, it often seems that everybody is unhappy. The musicians and music buffs in the audience tend to grumble about not hearing enough new music, while glaring at newcomers who might not know the “appropriate” times to clap. Meanwhile, the traditionalists might be snoring through the new music concerto that’s sandwiched between a Mozart opener and a Brahms symphony. Or else they are sometimes heard audibly complaining during a new piece, “I don’t like this atonal stuff,” which usually means that their nap was interrupted by “too much dissonance.” Also, young non-musicians who end up at the symphony often find themselves alienated by its formal etiquette. 

Administrators shake their heads at the numbers, convinced that new art music isn’t selling. But here’s my question: How much are the administrators actually trying to market new music specifically? Of course new music doesn’t sell at the orchestra! When I think of new music, I usually go elsewhere because I know that I often won’t find it at the orchestra (or, if it’s there I’ll still have to pay a full ticket price for a concert that only has 1/3 of what I’m really looking for that day). Most orchestras live in fear of ever offending their donors or changing up their programming, because making changes could be a huge risk for an organization that is already on the brink. But that’s the thing—the organization IS on the brink, indicating that 1) either the donors aren’t getting exactly what they want or that 2) what the donors want is not going to sustain the orchestra in the long run. So we need to adjust. 

I’d like to see an orchestra try to mix things up, perhaps by scheduling concerts solely devoted to new music alongside concerts solely devoted to classics (perhaps on a rotating basis of every other weekend, or putting new music concerts on every third weekend, or something equivalent, if that proves to be financially necessary). Then the administrators could actually market the new music concerts directly (targeting musicians, music buffs, and younger generations with living composer concerts, multimedia pieces, connections to jazz, crossover music, etc.), instead of having to compromise in order to appease at least two very different demographics. Marketing could try to align the orchestra with the modern art gallery, as Sarah said, offering musical space for the old and the new.

Furthermore, if the new and classic concerts were separated, the audience members might feel more comfortable with one another. There is no easy way to measure how much the audience experience affects ticket sales, but I would bet that if the new music crowd were getting exactly what they wanted and the traditionalist crowd were getting exactly what they wanted, the energy in the concert hall would increase and the amount of people wanting to return to the symphony would be greater.

To address another angle, the role of the orchestra has changed significantly over time. It used to be one of the only ways for people to experience entertainment. Now we have movie theaters, rock concerts, and—more often than not—people staying at home in front of their TVs. People would often talk during orchestra concerts in the 19th century. I feel conflicted about this because, as a composer, I usually dislike it when people talk during concerts. But there is something inherently stuffy, outdated, and elite about the traditions surrounding concert etiquette and I think for a lot of people it’s a huge turnoff. What if, for certain concerts, you were allowed to have a beer while you listen? Or maybe you could eat some food?  What if the orchestra reclaimed its position as the place to not only hear wonderful, high quality music, but also to socialize as a community? What if the orchestra not only played fabulous new pieces, but also played the fabulous new pieces of composers from the local community, making it relevant to the current, local area and tapping into a broader demographic?

And finally, why are orchestral conductors (and upper level administrators) paid so much? I know it’s a relatively minor issue when you think of the other financial losses that orchestras are suffering from, but is there an economic or social justification for the exorbitant—often hundreds of thousand and sometimes million or multimillion dollar—salaries for conductors, especially for top-tier orchestras? How is this hurting the orchestral industry itself? I’m not sure that any kind of million-dollar salary is justified, but at least celebrities and athletes can bring in the profits to support it. We can argue until we’re blue in the face that the merit of orchestras is higher than that of other entertainment industries, but the truth is that orchestras are clearly not in the same economic category and really can’t afford to be treating their conductors like rock stars. There is one top-tier orchestra I know of that is relatively thriving, largely due to the conductor’s decision to invest so much of their salary back into the orchestra and other related community programs. This particular orchestra lucked out with their conductor, though—not every conductor would be so generous or so invested. 

Anyway, I do recognize that this is a much bigger problem than anything I can address here and I am sure that my ideas have their own pitfalls. No matter what, we need to band together as a musical community to come up with ways to restructure and re-market the orchestra because, as Sarah said, it’s a fabulous ensemble with a long and growing tradition of amazing pieces, all of which deserve to be heard.

Posted by Natalie

No comments:

Post a Comment