Don't Blame the Orchestra!

I read a New York Times article recently that made a few conjectures that annoyed me, including this one:

“Some have argued too that there is nothing wrong with orchestras serving — in part — the function of museums, keeping the classics on view.”

I’m not the first, nor will I be the last, to discuss whether the orchestra is “dead” as an institution. I’m not really in the mood to debate that, but I think it’s really sad that people are ready to give up on the orchestra- it’s not the orchestra’s fault, as an ensemble, that it is constantly forced to play the same pieces over and over. (Another quote from the above article: “…you get performances which inspire the phrase: ‘Once you’ve heard one major American symphony orchestra’s Beethoven 5 these days, you’ve pretty much heard them all!’”) It is the conductors, administrators, music directors, programmers, etc.- all the people involved in making repertoire decisions. These are the people who are killing the orchestra, but there is nothing wrong with the orchestra itself. People write new music for orchestra all the time- it just hardly ever gets programmed.

Here’s what I don’t understand: using the orchestra as a “museum.” First of all, that makes no sense. Think about art museums- do art museums only exist to showcase the old classics? Of course not! What about contemporary art museums? I’m not arguing that the orchestra should be used as a museum at all (an ideal situation would be an orchestra that performs both new and old music), but even if people are insistent that orchestras continue to showcase the old classics, they should recognize that that doesn’t preclude them from also showcasing new music. There’s no reason, in the abstract, why it has to be just one or the other (there may be economic and audience reasons, however). And I should point out that there are orchestras who do this- the American Composers Orchestra is devoted exclusively to contemporary music. There are also more and more orchestras that do make a point to not only program new music along with the classics, but to provide opportunities for emerging composers (the Minnesota Orchestra Composers Institute is a great example). And the list goes on.

But aside from these noteworthy ensembles, what doesn't make sense to me is why the music world seems so content to continue bringing up the past, more so than any other art form seems to (except perhaps visual art). Correct me if I'm wrong, but many people don't like going to old movies or old plays- they want to see something new. Why is music any different? Of course, in many of these genres, older movies, plays, paintings, dance, etc, are showcased just as much as the newer ones (depending on which field you’re talking about), and no one seems to have a problem grouping them together and accepting that they are both valid forms of the art. Yes, you may have to decide between visiting the Museum of Modern Art versus the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but they are both recognized as important places to showcase art. And many people are happy to visit both places. I suppose dance might be more like music in that regard- do people who frequent ballet performances also enjoy modern dance? I have no idea but I would imagine that ballet audiences are to classical music audiences as modern dance is to new music. Why is that?

Does this mean that in music, we are going to need separate orchestras to perform new music? The Metropolitan Museum of Art does have contemporary exhibits, so in our analogy, there shouldn’t be any reason why the Major City Symphony Orchestra doesn’t perform more new music, and I’m not just talking about a few token pieces every season. Of course, the Museum of Modern Art is all contemporary all the time, and we have many, many ensembles devoted to new music, but I’m wondering about the orchestra in particular. What doesn’t seem to work is when orchestra administrators program a new piece sandwiched between two old favorites, so audiences are trapped into hearing new music. Perhaps a few people in the audience will learn something new and enjoy it, but it doesn’t seem fair to new music to presume that no one will come listen to it if it weren’t programmed in between Pictures at an Exhibition and Mahler’s 3rd (which are both very cool pieces, but not exactly new).

As a side note- no one ever postulates that the string quartet is dead. And yet the composer who wants to write for string quartet has the same problem as the one who wants to write for orchestra- hundreds of years’ worth of fantastic pieces written by the old masters to compete with. But somehow, new music for string quartet is much more common and is programmed far more often, although there may be some practical reasons for that (far fewer performers to pay, more flexibility in both programming and venue, etc.).

No, the orchestra is not dead, and no, it shouldn’t just be a museum for the old classics. And as all the people who have debated this before me, I still don’t have many answers for what we can do about it. But I do think we should stop blaming the orchestra.

Posted by Sarah