Two articles jumped out at me over the weekend. Both reminded me of the constant tail chasing that goes on in the arts world. Sometimes we get so far behind our audience’s needs, that we end up doing either what we should have been doing all along but a little too late, or the opposite of we should be doing right now….
Firstly, in this article about the financial predicament the Utah Symphony and Opera find themselves in, this quote from COO and Senior VP David Green stood out to me:
Besides seeking contributions, the organization has sought other ways to trim the fat and do more — or the same — with less.
That’s why the 2009-10 orchestra season is packed with what Green calls “beloved warhorses that are tried and true,” with concerts and composers that are recognizable to the casual classical music fan. The season schedule includes: “An Evening of Beethoven” in September, Dvorák’s “New World” Symphony in February and Verdi’s Requiem in April. “We want to program things that people love,” Green said.
So, in other words, they are looking forward to the the economy turning around so they can go back to performing works that are not “warhorses”, that people don’t love and are of no interest to the “casual classical music fan” ( I think casual fan might be a contradiction in terms)? It would be difficult to turn someone “casual” into a subscriber without performing these “warhorses” anyway and NEWS FLASH, even die hard fans like them too! Warhorses are generally winners. I would bet that no matter how many times you put on Beethoven 5th, there is someone there who is hearing it for the first time, so therefore it is new for them anyway. Wait, it’s not about them, I forgot!
Hey, let’s say I’m the new curator of the Louvre, and I have decided that I’m tired of seeing that Mona Lisa, I mean what is she smiling about anyway, so let’s put a Paper -Mâché retrospective up there instead…..I would be fired the same day! In opposite world, some only perform the works that people want to hear when things are bad. During good times some don’t feel the need to perform the beloved works because the money is coming in. So how’s that decision working out for you now? Bottom line, we need to be responsive to our audience at all times, and not focus on selling them tickets, but instead bringing something valuable into their lives. It starts by asking them what they want to hear and not focusing on getting them to come once, but on getting them to come back! When it hopefully turns around again, keep riding those “warhorses” and maybe times wont get this bad again!
The other article was a speculative piece on whether or not British Museums might start charging admission fees as they once did, because they need the money! This is also opposite world as this is the time people don’t have the money to spend, and would opt to do something else if suddenly something they could once count on enjoying gratis is now going to cost them. Arts groups make this mistake also, thinking that it’s in the lean times that they need to up their prices to help pay bills. Wrong! Less people might attend meaning it will make little difference to the bottom line and the hall will look sparse. Worse it might appear disloyal to subscribers. If raising prices, it’s better to do it in the prosperous times when people have more money to spend and might not mind as much. That is also planning for the future. Right now is the time to freeze prices, because it’s right now when people need to be uplifted the most by what we do, and when their loyalty to us needs to be rewarded. I announced a price freeze for next season at our April concert, and the ovation was tremendous. Since then there has been much gratitude along with a steady stream of renewals!
From the Spongebob episode Opposite Day someone actually reversed this to reveal what they really said (about 12 seconds in):
Is Mahler 5 considered a warhorse in Springfield ?
Mahler 5 is a popular often played Symphony. We tend to do Mahler every 2 years, expensive to put on! The Adagietto (mvt 4) has been used very effectively in film “Death in Venice” and has been used on many solemn occasions including Robert Kennedy’s funeral, plus that opening fanfare is an iconic moment in music. Most importantly though, the audience requested it (on our last survey it came 2nd to Mahler 1 which which we did 2 seasons ago), No. 4 and 2 were neck and neck for third. You can read our smackdown about Mahler 5 here
OK. Mahler is not a big seller in my city of 1m. I wish it were.
The ASOL surveys say Mahler 5 gets about a third as many performances as Beethoven 7. Still, that’s not bad.
I’d be curious about your survey methodology eg. whether the survey included, for instance, Carmina Burana, Bolero, 1812, Abbamania, ‘The Three Midwestern Tenors’ or a Led Zeppelin tribute. It’s all good, right ?
I guess my point is, we’re all at different locations on the same slippery mountainside. Some have dug in their heels, at different spots as you and Bill have demonstrated with your Smackdown. Others are sliding.
If it takes statistics to conduct a piece you love, go for it! If it takes a 200m endowment, that works too.
Your remarks imply that the person who commissioned the I.M. Pei Pyramid at the Louvre would be fired. The facile argument that art as pandering is what the public wants throws down a red herring argument as a shield for lazy arts administration. There are very few people who say, rid ourselves of Beethoven, or Mozart, so we can play music people don’t like. At the same time, while mobs enter MOMA in NYC, enjoy the new Renzo Piano wing of Chicago’s Art Institute, enjoy the ground breaking novels of Bolano, take in experimental theatre, wow over the latest buildings of Gehry and Nouvel, music is to be static, retrograde, because “that’s what the public wants”.
I think you confuse war horse programming, and the lack of such, with poor programming, and programming without artistic vision and conviction. Locking public music making into some archaic, reified deification of the past hardly makes for good Beethoven or something the public will ultimately crave. Recent history in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago has shown that creative programming including new music has built audiences and long term support. These orchestras seem to be in good shape, while other markets, including the Metropolitan Opera (perhaps the most conservative major institution in the nation) undertake massive reductions and admit huge losses.
In Utah, a host of administrative non-musical SNAFU’s have resulted in the current difficulties. Two generations ago, the same orchestra was recording Mahler and much of Varese to critical acclaim, at a time when the name of Mahler was uttered with disdain. Varese was beneath even uttering. The orchestra later recorded award winning renditions of music by george Perle.
Back to your original argument, you have a narrow but intense following that comes for your programming which is clearly self affirming. That works for now. When that audience ages and transforms, when you are gone, do you feel the same tricks will succeed?
And by the way, I do like Beethoven.
Thanks for the challenge! What you said here: I think you confuse war horse programming, and the lack of such, with poor programming, and programming without artistic vision and conviction. I like! I will follow up after I am done with Cliburn blogging next week, but our responsiveness to our audience has doubled our sales and has given us a 95% renewal rate in 5 years. Our performances have gone from 15 to 30 each season! Now the previous history did play a part and geography and population size does also, but even with our so called “pandering” we have managed to commission 2 works, performed music by Diamond and Richard Einhorn and even many lesser known works by Glazunov, even Mozart! As you pointed out, the point is is creativity which for me is how you pair works, using a theme, an idea or at least a point!!! It is a disservice to perform the obscure when no one shows so I will agree that we have an intense following, but in no way is it narrow, we have increased audience in every demographic and we have attracted new members primarily from current members buying them tickets, word of mouth plus personal interaction with attention paid to the overall experience (the galleries you mentioned do the same on the latter). It is hard to compare Music to the essentially visual examples you used to refute, something else I shall write about. Remember Museums and Buildings are accessible and many times are free to enter or to look at, but I do see your point. My point is, even with an emphasis on warhorses here, that is also “new” for here and over time I expect there to be an organic shift, but we will make that shift with our audience not necessarily completely leading us, but helping us along the path.
The point in referencing the museums is that people go, regardless of whether they know the specific artwork. They go even though some rooms are shocking in content. And you never hear them (well, hardly ever hear them) demanding the removal of art pieces. So, to a certain extent, they accept the management’s prerogative to design the presentation they view. Regarding price, MOMA, the Getty, to name only 2, are quite pricey to enter. Yet during their peak seasons, they are crammed with visitors.
Your comments regarding the past 5 years appear to indicate that thought went into programming, which is quite different than simply programming only music that people love. But, the same must be acknowledged in regard to Chicago Symphony’s MusicNow and the same city’s FulcrumPoint, or even Paris’s Ensemble InterContemporain? Committed, excellent presentation of art is acknowledged by the public, respected by the public and ATTENDED. And this attendance, whether for old or new can be seen in pop music as well: U2 and The Eagles sell out regularly as do Ebony Bones and other new bands. You won’t necessarily find Eagles fans at Ebony Bones concerts, just as you might not find Period Instrument fans at a Carter-Donatoni event, and vice versa. But the public quickly understands mediocrity and grows bored. I can guarantee that while ABBA might pack the house were they to make the mistake of returning, ABBA clone bands will never achieve that longevity because they have nothing new to offer. That’s where you lose audiences.
You hit on something in your first paragraph which is what we all should think about aspiring to obtain and that is audience trust. Bottom line, people have told me (and my guest blogger Alecia lawyer who is ED of the River oaks Chamber Orchestra) that sometimes they don’t even look at the program being performed, just knowing there is a concert is good enough for them because they have so thoroughly enjoyed the experience every time, and they even like to be surprised. That to me is trust and has been the key to turning single ticket buyers into subscribers. The MOMA, the Getty, obviously have gained this trust also. People just want to go and there is a comparison of how we as orchestras can be similar to an art gallery:
Along with the new exhibits, there is always a significant portion of the permanent collection on display for people returning i.e even when we perform something new or obscure, we still include something that the audience will be familiar with or will soon want to be familiar with (i.e the “warhorse”).
Sometimes the permanent collection is so large that pieces are rotated in and out i.e there are many Symphonic “warhorses” to rotate also!
Museums are places people like to hang out! We need to work hard to make are halls, accessible, friendly, inviting with plenty of opportunities for interaction between audience members
Overall whilst creativity in programming and quality of performance are important and need attention, in the end it’s the trust we build with our audience and community that will ultimately spur our growth. There is sometimes then too much emphasis on programming when it should be a holistic approach so that all stake holders (including the biggest group, the audience) have part to play, and that every aspect of the organization in developed and cared for. It is working here!
As I said before, nobody (at least nobody I know, that would include figures like Boulez) is recommending we end programming of war horses, or, more politely: standard repertoire. But when someone decides to perform a Tchaikovsky festival, all Tchaikovsky over three weeks, that’s both lame and lazy. Maazel infuriated NY audiences and critics alike with this type of programming over the last few years. As a result, audiences got unneeded all Brahms festivals, All Beethoven festivals, and the aforementioned all Tchaikovsky. What does that say about the mind behind the mission? Meanwhile, MTT has started a Schubert Berg Journey, and Levine was very successful with his Schoenberg/Beethoven pairings. David Robertson blew people away with a performance of Erwartung followed attacca by Beethoven 5, very much a war horse.
You mention museums being places where people like to hang out and that we need to do that with concert halls. The Cite de la Musique in Paris is just one such project. Another project would be to employ open spaces in concert halls for gallery exhibitions of art related to the music peing performed. A concert featuring Shostakovich could be paired with lobby art featuring Soviet realism in painting and posters, films where Shostakovich provided the soundtrack. Similarly, HK Gruber of Frankenstein!!! fame is married to a premiere artistic weaver whose artwork has influenced his compositions. I know that they would love the opportunity to present jointly. A Schoenberg-Blaue Ritter exhibit and concert is a nobrainer. Several years ago, we presented Ligeti’s Atmospheres with Debussy’s Nocturnes. At the intermission and following the concert we presents a hands on performance of Ligeti’s Poeme Symphonique which employs 100 metronomes all set differently. The audience could not get enough on this and the buzz was tremendous with audience members loitering in the lobby for some time following the concert, each wanting a try at starting the metronomes.