R. I. P.

"We looked into the future and were concerned about what we saw with audiences," [said Sheryl A. Sharp, the chair of the orchestra's board]. "We play to a generally older crowd, and frankly they were falling by the wayside. When we looked to see who was coming up behind them, we were not encouraged."

[Artistic director Hillel Kagan] said the group has been incurring small deficits -- less than $1,000 for the 2004-05 season -- so that wasn't the problem. Nor has there been a drop in performance quality. Over the last decade the orchestra has reached out to various ethnic communities with its series of imaginatively programmed festival concerts, which were well received by the public and press.

Rather, Concertante found itself caught between the rock of disappearing foundation grants and the hard place of diminished private support.

"In order to have a 2006 season, we would need at least $160,000," Kagan said. "Where do we get it? They money is not in the bank, and nobody has given us that amount. We can raise perhaps $20,000 from loyal friends of the orchestra. But it's not enough."

Now, I don't know how well the Concertante has been run. Maybe they brought some of their problems on themselves. But don't think the problems that they mention are unusual. They afflict the biggest classical music organizations as well as small ones. It's just that the biggest institutions are more resilient (which, if you want to be pessimistic, would simply mean that it might take them a longer time to die). They get a bigger slice of whatever support for classical music still exists. So they can hold out longer. But almost every one of them is feeling exactly the pressures that the unfortunate Concertante (which, to balance what I said earlier, might be a very savvy group) gave in to.