In Contrast To Cleveland, A Peek at Memphis

The Memphis Symphony Orchestra, in contrast with the Cleveland Orchestra, seems to be grappling with the realities of a changing culture.

This is a good thing, to borrow a phrase from Martha Stewart.  Management and musicians alike decided that the way to survive and thrive in the 21st century is to actually be of real service to the community, to actually become part of the warp and weave of local life. Again. Like they used to do, before they decided that were minor gods who needed only practice and perform, always and only under a union contract.

The first need is to play fewer concerts. In countless communities, large and small, the concert supply outstrips demand. Orchestras are burdened with contractual obligations that compel them to produce - laboriously and expensively - concerts without a ready audience. Fundraising and marketing resources are overstretched and stretched again.

The second need is for orchestras to define themselves less narrowly as concert producers and more broadly as education providers, engaged with schools, universities, museums, with the community at large.

Music blogger Joe Horowitz offers some good words on behalf of this approach, and has more good words from an earlier post as well.

Why does this matter? 

Well, let's assume we find our way through the economic maze, and five years from now, we emerge with a stable society that employs its people producing real goods and services, with healthy compensation, low taxes, civil liberties intact, etc.

We'll also want it to be a society that knows how to make music, write books, teach its children about Shakespeare and Bach, and remember that it stewards the cultural and spiritual riches of The West.

OldSouth's darkest fear is that we're failing at both big tasks, and wonders if we struggle with the first task in part because we failed so badly for so long at the second.