Recently in main Category

I have written continuously about symphony orchestras and community engagement. I keep saying that the biggest change in the behavior of orchestras around the country in the past decade or so is that they are re-examining their relationships with their communities, expanding those relationships so that they are so much more than givers of concerts - although of course those concerts are and will always be at the center of what they are. But orchestras must be more than givers of subscription concerts - they must be meaningful to a wide range of people, many of whom may never actually attend those concerts. From a time when community programs started with the hope that they might increase attendance, they have become programs with a different goal - a goal of the symphony orchestra being a true community resource.

One of the really interesting issues that I keep coming across as I visit a wide range of symphony orchestras in America is the question of what is sometimes called "artistic policy." And the central issue around it is "who is in charge?" One's immediate instinct is to say, of course, the music director. The old cliché is that the music director is in charge of the artistic product, the executive director is in charge of the business, and the board governs both. The problem is that that model doesn't work. It probably never really did, but in our more complex times it certainly doesn't.  The reality is that there is hardly any artistic decision that can be made that does not have a financial implication, and there is hardly a financial decision that doesn't have an artistic implication. As a general rule (there are always exceptions, of course) the orchestras that I encounter that are most successful by any objective standards are orchestras where there is a true collaborative spirit between the executive and artistic directors (and, sometimes, the board leadership as well - depending on knowledge and experience). The old-fashioned music director who stands on a pedestal as well as a podium, and single-handedly makes programming decisions without discussion and genuine input from others is vanishing, and in my view none too soon. 

There has been a growing trend over the past ten or fifteen years, more prevalent in small or mid-sized orchestras than in the largest ones, but true in some of those as well. This trend has been to change the "reporting structure" of symphony orchestras. The traditional structure, still in place in the majority of orchestras, is that the music director and the executive director (that latter title may in some places be "president," "managing director," or something else) both report to the board, usually through the board chair (sometimes called "president" - am I confusing you yet?). The new trend is to have the music director report to the executive director. I presume this has come about because boards and their chairs feel they don't have the professional competence, experience, and/or knowledge to "supervise" the conductor. Another reason, perhaps, is that the conductor is often out of town guest conducting, but we still don't have a tradition of guest managing, so the executive director tends to be "home" year-round.

In my visits to orchestras around the country, and my conversations with administrations and boards, I am sometimes struck by how orchestral organizations undervalue the importance of the total customer experience. There is no question that high-quality playing, committed performances, and vibrant programming are the most essential ingredients in an orchestra's success. But these things alone won't do it. An orchestral institution must examine every single aspect of the customer experience and raise it to the highest possible level.

As we begin to get to the serious part of another presidential campaign, along with all of the other domestic and international issues that confront us, my mind turns to the place of the arts in our society. Some of the candidates have actually begun to articulate positions on the arts and arts education (I'll avoid appearing to advocate here - you can certainly do the research) and that is gratifying. I believe strongly that how any society views the arts says much about the quality of that society. Last year I was asked to give a commencement speech at Bowling Green University, and I decided to make that my subject. Because of my strong feelings about this subject, and because I believe that public policy regarding the arts deserves a visible place in a political campaign, I am going to re-print that speech here, even though it is significantly longer than a normal blog entry. I hope you don't mind, but these are thoughts I wanted to share with you.

Many of us know that music education in America's public schools is not what it once was. Some of us are old enough to remember when virtually every public school had an orchestra as well as a band, and taught music in a variety of ways. The decline of music education, indeed all arts education, in our school systems has been widely commented on.

I try hard not to use this space to review or recommend specific items, but I must make an exception here. I have been listening recently to some genuine miracles of audio restoration - the work of a company called Pristine Audio. Pristine Audio uses digital technology to, in essence, re-create the frequencies that are missing or diminished on early recordings, thus coming much closer to a full sonic spectrum on recordings that have always, prior to this, sounded somewhat dim. In some cases, the transformation is truly great - bringing to life some extraordinary recorded performances that can now be appreciated much more fully than ever before. Three of these recordings are classics led by Willem Mengelberg, the great Dutch conductor.

In the 45 years that I have been professionally associated with symphony orchestras in America, I have lost count of the number of times an alarm has been sounded about the state of crisis in which they exist, sometimes with warnings of the imminent demise of the industry. So far, at least, those alarms have proven to be false ones - and for the most part, symphony orchestras are more vibrant, healthy, and vital now than they have ever been. That does not mean that they don't have challenges, much like the entire non-profit field, but it does mean that they have learned how to address them.

We at the League of American Orchestras constantly look for examples that might inspire orchestras to think about community engagement in new ways - we call it "achieving civic stature," meaning that it makes the orchestra important to your whole community, not just your main-series audience. While visiting Houston, I learned of a remarkable project of the Houston Grand Opera that struck me for its boldness and the depth of its impact, and I thought I would share it.

It continues to amaze (and please) me to see orchestras flourish in small communities, even with the presence of other orchestras not far away. It underlines the fact that communities want something of their own, something to point to with pride.