A question

Semyon Bychkov has been conducting the Shostakovich Seventh Symphony at the New York Philharmonic. He's substituting for Christoph von Dohnanyi, who was going to conduct something else. But for Bychkov, the Philharmonic changed the program to the Shostakovich Seventh.

The New York Times review gave a little background, saying that Bychkov had recorded the symphony. As it happens, he'd also conducted it in Pittsburgh the week before. It wasn't surprising, then, that when he agreed to replace Dohnanyi on short notice he wanted to do the piece again. He had it ready, and he also surely knew that he could make a great effect with it, just as he did in Pittsburgh, where his performance was tremendous.

But it is surprising that the Philharmonic let him do it. The Shostakovich Seventh is a very expensive piece for any orchestra to play, because it needs many extra brass players, who have to be hired at extra cost. When I led discussions with members of the Pittsburgh symphony's audience after Bychkov's performances, some of them -- overwhelmed by the music -- asked why the piece isn't played more often. The answer was that it costs too much.

So here's the Philharmonic, which, like any orchestra, budgets its season ahead of time, and knows exactly how many extra players the budget will allow. Suddenly Bychkov comes along, and they break open the bank for him. I'm not saying this is a bad idea; budgets aside, it's a fabulous thing to do. Bychkov has a powerful way with this piece.

But why did they decide to give him what they wanted? Did they do it because they knew how strong the performances would be, or because Bychkov, doing them a favor by coming on short notice, demanded that they do it? Or, of course, for both reasons.

So here's my question. Should the review have mentioned any of this? Should it at the very least have told readers that the symphony is very expensive to play, and that the Philharmonic did something unusual by putting it on their program when it hadn't been budgeted long in advance? (And, perhaps, that this was an indication either of their respect for Bychkov, or of his clout, or both.)

I've been told that this is "inside information," and that the classical music audience isn't interested in such things. But is that true? Please e-mail me at greg@gregsandow.com and let me know what you think! (I'd especially love to hear from people who aren't classical music professionals.)

Footnote: A while ago I used three Bychkov CDs as random examples of something that's hard to deal with in the classical music business -- the profusion of standard repertoire recordings by people who aren't household names. What are we supposed to do with these recordings? Who's going to buy them? Why should any critic feel impelled -- apart from curiosity, or earnest hope -- to listen to them? My point was valid, but my example was accidentally unfortunate. Now that I've heard Bychkov, I know why I'd want to listen!