In advance of their June conference in Atlanta, the League of American Orchestras has launched a new website that seeks to help answer that time-honored question: How do orchestras need to change? They’re probably gonna have a lot to talk / fight about. There will be several bloggers contributing to the pre-conference discussion on the new site, including my fair lady. Should be interesting to follow along to see what, if anything, comes from the discussion.
Personally, I’d like to see some organization take a huge risk; one that pisses off a bunch of their board and crusty old subscribers, but really pushes an innovative agenda and new ways of presenting / imagining / programming / experiencing the orchestra. I don’t know what this is. I’ll think about it some more. And if I come up with an answer I will charge for it. It’s possible that something ‘r/evolutionary’ could be a complete flop and destroy an organization, but it could also ‘r/evolutionize’ the field. Feel like it’s hard to make changes like that in a big organization though, right?
Speaking of changes, I wanted to call your attention to a change that Tim Smith, our Baltimore Sun critic, proposed in a recent review of a Baltimore Symphony program that included Strauss’s Don Juan, Schumann’s Piano Concerto, and Brahms’s Third Symphony. Tim suggested that in some instances it might be wise to dispense with the ‘curtain-raiser’-concerto-symphony convention in favor of putting the meaty piece—the Brahms Symphony, in this case—on the first half and saving the other, ‘lighter’ fare for the second half. Sounds like a small change that could be implemented / experimented with that wouldn’t cause much uproar. From a ticket sales point of view, I guess it really doesn’t matter whether people leave at intermission or not—that money’s already in the bank. But it’s not about money, right? It’s about people experiencing music, right? Isn’t it?
