An Orchestra's relevance isn't relevant?

An intriguing conversation has spread throughout the AMERICAN orchestral industry regarding its most important problem: relevance or structure. Here's a great intro to the topic, and the precis for my essay below. http://mcmvanbree.com/dutchperspective/on-purpose-change-structure-and-relevance

BTW, it's also worth noting that several of my British peers currently in the orchestral scene across the pond 'attended' the League of American Orchestra's 2010 conference online, and were stunned at the different and fundamental problems facing orchestras in the USA: most UK orchestras faced these same problems 10+ years ago, as we did here, but they seem to have done something about it. We, on the other hand, talked a lot but nothing much changed or got done - and we certainly haven't learned from those who successfully transformed their audiences into zealots! Hence this year's "panic" about relevance, purpose, change and structure at the LAO conference.

Here's my input to THIS conversation (make sure you've read the link above):

Generally, I'm pretty much convinced that the four questions posed by the LOA cannot, in fact, be effectively considered independently of each other - i.e., if we had to prioritize then I wouldn't be able to. Before the conference I must admit to selecting Relevance. Then Change. As well as Structure - all at various times (purpose and relevance as defined seem almost the same).

Of course, as we approach from our different perspectives and exposure, we will have different priorities. For example, consideration of Facebook's structure that allows its users to create its relevance/ purpose for their own benefit wouldn't have crossed my mind as a user - I just use it. But now it's been brought to my attention, I inquire as to what prompted such a flexible structure in the first place? Gotta have that end goal in mind, even if it is to let users create their own purpose...

Much like a piece of music an orchestra might perform: There is ALWAYS an over-arching 'theme' or 'content' or 'thought' or 'inspiration' or something that reflects the composer's intention. The intention could be simply to disrupt as much pleasurable audio experiences as possible (Birtwhistle!) or to imitate nature (Debussy), dwell in depression (Gorecki), celebrate an event (Tchaikovsky), explore a new timbre (Ravel), tell a story (Berlioz), provide background (Zimmer), instigate as many emotions as possible in one evening (Mahler), etc. The list is literally endless.

The notes, the instruments, the form of expression, possibly even the commissioning venue and performers, all contribute to the realization (read: physical structure) of the originator's/ composer's intention (purpose). Then the performers and venue add their own intention for sharing the piece (the interface), whether or not they permit the originator's/ composer's intention to influence them. On top of all that, the listener - hopefully participating on a conscious level - interprets what they hear and see which affects them in a personal manner altogether similar or different to the performers AND the composer! (I guess, user-created purpose?). This 'affect' could be pleasing or annoying, satisfying or disturbing, etc., and not at all related to what the composer or the performer intended.

So, a piece of music starts not with the structure, but the intention. Not the 'artform', and not purpose, but a desire to experience something that inexplicably affects us and/or others - Something relevant to me, as an individual.

Having mentioned "listener" and "on a conscious level": this topic also leads us down the path of what engagement is - listening and allowing oneself to be emotionally/ physically affected by music is not humanly possible whilst engaged in a simultaneously 'distracting' activity, such as reading tweets or program notes, or watching a video. Or does engagement mean we simply want to sell more tickets - i.e. engage with us, rather than engage with the music? Listening [properly] is hardly 'silent participation', but if we'd rather just get bums on seats, then through pandering we'll lose the ability to share music with people and have them 'engage' with it directly, and they'll forget 1) how to listen, 2) that they should be listening (and processing), and 3) to get involved. Oops - too late.

So, we've come to appreciate that a piece of music performed by an orchestra (and choir) somehow affects those that participate in it as composer, performer and/or listener, but only if people appreciate that they can be affected by it (or introduce the naïve [children] to such an experience). Therefore, an overbearing dilemma exists: why would anyone not knowing the affect music can have on them WANT to participate? We can create and have created a variety of environments and opportunities for audiences to be attracted to attend concerts, and in reality orchestras have already been experimenting for decades. Perhaps this year’s panic in the industry indicates a chilling truth that little of it is working. Ultimately, an organization’s flexible structure, purpose and changes are vital for an ‘orchestra’ to survive in the 21st century, but if people are not introduced AND affected by the ‘art’, nor feel it serves them any purpose, why would they attend and/ or support it?

Part of (most of) my argument for encouraging orchestras to define their relevance for THEIR COMMUNITY is to help active musicians, administrators, funders and suppliers realize that most people no longer know what an orchestra is for, nor what its music is for, nor why there’s a concert hall, nor fund-raising gala dinners, nor taxpayer support, nor even a marching band at high school… let alone why they should attend or support one. Our society has completely lost a fundamental association to music (art) other than those who actively practice it through family persuasion – see plenty of recent research to support this. Therefore, it is imperative that as we construct a structure that permits flexible user-created purposes, and change what needs to be changed, we definitely and most importantly need to help our neighbors appreciate an orchestra’s relevance to their lives (or at least the value of live classical music). Otherwise we will have no support, no funding, no audience, and eventually, no live orchestras at all (except, perhaps, through Andre Rieu’s incredible marketing success – this violinist and his orchestra are the 4th most popular entertainers alive beating Elton John and Bruce Springsteen, and the 7th most popular entertainers in ALL HISTORY! How on earth do we justify ignoring that?!).