Doug, I finally got around to reading this and it's SO GOOD! I'm going to save it to mull over; you absolutely nailed the phenomenon of arts orgs overly focusing on C/W and completely disregarding L. It tracks with my own experience; I am a tiny, tiny data point with nothing approaching the audience scale that orchestras have, but what I've found is that once I get people through the door, creating a listener-focused experience results in a WAY more engaged and happier audience than traditional concert models ("come listen to [famous composer] -> didn't you like being played at?")
Will stop here because...I have my own Substack to pontificate at length in, lol.
Yes! Thank you! Solo artists (or "P" in the ecosystem) certainly have a lot of control over these variables, too, and I love how you are thinking about that. Your incredible articles ("Adventures in Fear and Discovery") also illuminate really important aspects of the relationships between P and C/W in an evolving ecosystem.
Hi Doug! These notes are very interesting and necessary. I've been following Aubrey with great interest because we are working on the same issues and finding the same solutions (such as audience centrism), even if approaching from different sides of the industry (administrative vs artistic). As a composer-arranger-performer and former major orchestra musician, I can adapt the music itself, programming, performance styles, dress, and hosting to experiment on a small scale to be "edu-taining" and thus more relevant to the various audiences I see, whether at a church, a school, a home, a street festival or a bar. And there's no greater reward than successfully serving the music I love to a whole new audience.
Our major symphony orchestras can experiment too on small scales. But they will find little success, I predict, without letting go of part of the mission statement proscribing "world-class excellence." This phrase has been rendered almost meaningless today, if only for the fact that most educational and some commercial entities have self-declared as such. The masses don't care so much about critical judgments anyway: they want to know why and how this music matters TO THEM.
If our orchestras truly wanted to broaden audiences, we'd make concerts LESS about class, money and discernment. No, the emphasis on these last brings in the money to fund these expensive and deserving institutions. We simply need a way to honor (balance) both sides of this coin that doesn't continue to alienate (insult) the broader public, because everyone deserves beautiful, dramatic, shaped, written, instrumental music.
Rick, thanks for your thoughts. I generally agree about "world-class musical excellence." It's a meaningless phrase and can't be measured in an accountable way. Plus, the talent level of players is through the roof (Aubrey has also talked about this in other venues); I see/hear it every day working with students. Shading the mission away from this goal wouldn't be sacrificing excellence. It would redefine excellence in positive ways.
On that note (B-natural perhaps), it would be practically excellent to A) point out how playing the standard repertoire of classical is similar to singing our favorite songs: they never get old or lose their punch, B) redefine "classical" as "inspired by the ancient Greeks who said the arts should have structure, contrast and theater that lead to catharsis" or something simplified to that effect, and C) that what moves us most is getting to hear the artists speak AS MUCH AS hearing and seeing them perform; thus all featured artists should talk AT THE CONCERT.
Doug, I finally got around to reading this and it's SO GOOD! I'm going to save it to mull over; you absolutely nailed the phenomenon of arts orgs overly focusing on C/W and completely disregarding L. It tracks with my own experience; I am a tiny, tiny data point with nothing approaching the audience scale that orchestras have, but what I've found is that once I get people through the door, creating a listener-focused experience results in a WAY more engaged and happier audience than traditional concert models ("come listen to [famous composer] -> didn't you like being played at?")
Will stop here because...I have my own Substack to pontificate at length in, lol.
Yes! Thank you! Solo artists (or "P" in the ecosystem) certainly have a lot of control over these variables, too, and I love how you are thinking about that. Your incredible articles ("Adventures in Fear and Discovery") also illuminate really important aspects of the relationships between P and C/W in an evolving ecosystem.
Hi Doug! These notes are very interesting and necessary. I've been following Aubrey with great interest because we are working on the same issues and finding the same solutions (such as audience centrism), even if approaching from different sides of the industry (administrative vs artistic). As a composer-arranger-performer and former major orchestra musician, I can adapt the music itself, programming, performance styles, dress, and hosting to experiment on a small scale to be "edu-taining" and thus more relevant to the various audiences I see, whether at a church, a school, a home, a street festival or a bar. And there's no greater reward than successfully serving the music I love to a whole new audience.
Our major symphony orchestras can experiment too on small scales. But they will find little success, I predict, without letting go of part of the mission statement proscribing "world-class excellence." This phrase has been rendered almost meaningless today, if only for the fact that most educational and some commercial entities have self-declared as such. The masses don't care so much about critical judgments anyway: they want to know why and how this music matters TO THEM.
If our orchestras truly wanted to broaden audiences, we'd make concerts LESS about class, money and discernment. No, the emphasis on these last brings in the money to fund these expensive and deserving institutions. We simply need a way to honor (balance) both sides of this coin that doesn't continue to alienate (insult) the broader public, because everyone deserves beautiful, dramatic, shaped, written, instrumental music.
Rick, thanks for your thoughts. I generally agree about "world-class musical excellence." It's a meaningless phrase and can't be measured in an accountable way. Plus, the talent level of players is through the roof (Aubrey has also talked about this in other venues); I see/hear it every day working with students. Shading the mission away from this goal wouldn't be sacrificing excellence. It would redefine excellence in positive ways.
On that note (B-natural perhaps), it would be practically excellent to A) point out how playing the standard repertoire of classical is similar to singing our favorite songs: they never get old or lose their punch, B) redefine "classical" as "inspired by the ancient Greeks who said the arts should have structure, contrast and theater that lead to catharsis" or something simplified to that effect, and C) that what moves us most is getting to hear the artists speak AS MUCH AS hearing and seeing them perform; thus all featured artists should talk AT THE CONCERT.