American
Symphony Orchestra League’s upbeat
annual statistical summary relating to
total concert attendance and funding.
However, the Times articles reflected
other recent music writers’ observations
and forebodings. These include freewheeling
music writer Norman Lebrecht’s book, Who
Killed Classical Music. The distinguished
music writer, Charles Rosen, acknowledged
that contemporary composers have not been
able to attract audiences (Critical
Entertainments).
Although some symphonies are doing well,
the Florida Philharmonic as well as the
San Jose, San Antonio, Tulsa, and Miami
symphonies have been forced to shut down
for lack of funds in recent years. The
St. Louis Symphony faced bankruptcy (thought
recently bailed out by a major donor),
and other distinguished symphonies are
experiencing deficits for the first time.
Few American symphonies now have recording
contracts, and the greying of audiences
hasn’t been changed by an influx of younger
music lovers. The trends are not limited
to the United States, considering a recent
report on the Naxos website of troubles
among Japanese symphonies.
Funding from large foundations that fuelled
a boom in American symphonies in the 1960s
has dwindled in recent decades. However,
two big American foundations have stepped
in with programs to stimulate perceived
needs for structural and attitudinal change
in American symphony orchestras. The Mellon
and Knight foundations have provided competitive
grants focused on reformist objectives
to some 25 American symphony orchestras.
The Andrew
W. Mellon Foundation approaches each
orchestra’s organization individually
to support improvements in professional
orchestra management, organization, programs,
outreach, and the conditions for and communications
with musicians.
The John
S. and James L. Knight Foundation's
ten-year $10 million investment in American
symphony orchestras and classical music
research took a more radical, audience-oriented
approach. The unusual Knight initiative
included polls of 25,000 persons and extensive
statistical analyses on the communities
of 10 symphony orchestras. The results
showed that up to 60% of the surveyed
adult public had at least occasional interest
in classical music, but less than 5% bought
concert tickets.
Penelope McPhee, Chief Program Officer
for the Knight Foundation, delivered tough
love to symphony managers in an article
in the October 2002 issue of Harmony,
the online journal of the Symphony
Orchestra Institute (SOI). Noting
that she qualified as a committed music
lover rather than a professional, Ms McPhee
stated:
"I’d argue that for the most part,
orchestras have nothing but disdain for
their audiences. The whole notion that
doing it differently is "dumbing
it down" is disdainful. The attitude
you communicate to us audience members
is that you’re doing us a favour by letting
us pay you to play what you want to play.
You want us to pay our money and eat our
spinach because it’s good for us."
The Knight Foundation challenge brought
mixed reactions. Some authors in the October
2003 Harmony issue supported outreach
and audience empowerment. However,
Duluth Symphony director Mark Thakar reported
that, so far, initiatives among the participating
orchestras have been limited. Among other
things, managers were said to be leery
of seeking broader audience input at the
cost of the "quality" and the
reputation of their orchestral offerings.
As the first major American foundation
effort to analyse the relationship between
symphony orchestras and their potential
audiences, the Knight Foundation report
was a milestone. Though little reported
in the media, its recommendations have
made waves among symphony organizations
in the U.S. Some organizations are overhauling
web sites, initiating more outreach activities
to connect with audiences, scheduling
combining musical events with other cultural
activities, featuring interviews and more
direct communications from or with the
symphony conductor. Preliminary information
suggests that outreach experiments are
least likely among struggling orchestras
that guard their limited resources.
They are more likely among stronger organisations
more able to take risks.