Halfway to what?

Part of the fun of having a writing partnership on this blog is the built-in diversity of opinions. So, let me make sure to first direct you to Sam's most recent post before I proceed to play devil's advocate (or just raise some more interesting questions).

OK, read "No such thing as halfway"? Let me lay some observations on you (and in no particular order of chronology or significance - we are on orchestra vacation this week and I feel unencumbered by the need for hyper-efficiency, organization and protocol usually required of a conductor!).

First, the comments. The two reader comments concentrate on details that Sam had used just to clarify a point by making a comparison. While I'm all for journalistic accuracy (and Sam does clarify where he got the figures), I'm utterly fascinated by the fact that people have responded to these particular facts and figures (not the main thrust of Sam's argument) without commenting on the message as a whole. And unless I'm reading this whole post wrong, it's quite a message:

"Cities and their residents have to set priorities and make decisions, is what I'm trying to say in my typically long-winded, roundabout way. Not every city is going to be able to boast of having every conceivable entertainment and amenity. So there shouldn't have to be a lot of civic shame if a populace decides that it just doesn't want to spend millions every year to sustain a specific sports team or cultural group. But trying to keep such an organization floating on the cheap, as a shadow of what it ought to be, strikes me as taking your citizenry for a long walk off a short pier and asking them to pay for it."

In short, and, please, Sam, correct me if I'm wrong, my friend, the suggestions is that some cities will not be able to or simply not be interested in sustaining a full-time orchestra. Or, perhaps, any orchestra at all. And if they do, at present, sustain that larger orchestra, but with increasing difficulty and growing budget crises, it is doing a disservice to try to maintain only a portion of that orchestra, because it is not longer an "orchestra"; and, in fact, there should be no orchestra at all - because otherwise you're "taking your citizenry for a long walk off a short pier and asking them to pay for it."

Which I find to be a radical bit of thinking, and which is why I'm kind of surprised that the comments argue over the aforementioned minutiae (as important as those details may be).

Now, let's go back to that radical bit of thinking and revisit. City X is having a difficult time supporting its full-time orchestra. What do you do? (Full disclosure here for any readers who might not be privy to the inner workings of the classical music world; orchestra musicians and orchestra "management" (to which I would lump in orchestra boards as well) have an uneasy relationship, on the whole. And musicians tend to lump conductors into "management" (read: only interested in the bottom line, artistry be damned) as well. "Management" tends to think of conductors as "musicians" (read: only interested in artistry, the bottom line be damned). Which often puts conductors into an uncomfortable in-between netherworld of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".)

Sam is not the only person suggesting that it might be better to have no Orchestra X at all rather than have a vastly reduced ensemble playing for far fewer weeks. According to the Columbus Dispatch article link, discussing the Columbus Symphony situation which sparked Sam's thoughts about the matter:

"On Jan. 17, after walking out of the board's first attempt to explain the restructuring, union President Doug Fisher and other musicians said they'd rather see the symphony die than be downsized."

On one hand, I understand a union leader's stance on an organization of his constituents; the purpose of a union is power in numbers, the leverage of collective bargaining, etc. Makes sense, then, to have an all-or-nothing attitude. But at what cost?? We're talking permanent loss of all possible positions versus loss of 20 positions (not a majority). My own instinct (and again, like Sam, I would stress that I'm not responding directly to what's happening in Columbus, but to a hypothetical similar situation) would be to preserve what's possible to preserve; I would rather see a majority of musicians be able to keep doing what they're doing that see all of them out of work.

And here comes my second question, based on these assertions:

"But on the most general level, I've just never understood it when executives and board members of arts organizations propose to save their companies by slashing them beyond recognition. Orchestras are particularly inflexible in this regard, because they really only come in two sizes: symphonic, and chamber. Symphonic orchestras only work if they look and sound like orchestras, so proposing to serve your local public with a "symphonic orchestra" of 31 players is not only odd, it's making a fairly large assumption about what sort of hogwash your public is going to be willing to buy into."

Doesn't that depend on what we consider "symphonic"? Under the 21st century model, OK, yes, we could make these divisions of "symphonic" and "chamber" - but only because we consider the average Mozart-sized (or early Beethoven-sized) "symphonic" orchestra to be "chamber" sized by modern comparison.

But it also reminds me of organizations that consider themselves "symphony orchestras" that have a core ensemble of 30-some-odd players, such as the Richmond Symphony. (Full disclosure - I was associate conductor of the Richmond Symphony for a couple of years, and my husband is still acting principal horn there.) The structure of this ensemble allows then to perform as a smaller "chamber" sized ensemble, add on per-service musicians to perform (regularly) with a Strauss- or Mahler- or Bruckner- or Prokofiev-sized orchestra and present actual chamber groups (mostly in schools, occasionally for special functions). No-one considers this product to be diluted or "hogwash". In fact, this ensemble enriches the community immeasurably, particularly through its outreach efforts.

Now, given a large orchestra's financial woes, from a purely community perspective, my own feelings are that it's always better that some performing ensemble be maintained (it's the "something is better than nothing" viewpoint). Because there are artistic and social services that only an orchestra, as a prominent arts organization in any community, has the ability to provide. Because a sustainable smaller ensemble could maintain a musical presence and retain employment for a majority of the currently employed musicians. Yes, downsizing would require a tremendous and at times onerous paradigm shift, but why go for such an extreme all-or-nothing attitude?

This is what all of these conflicts, in my limited personal experience, always boils down to: musicians typically view management as never being able to fulfill their charge to secure the funding adequate to run orchestras as the musicians see fit ("Why can't they just raise some more money, isn't that their job?"); management typically view musicians as having no idea of the complexities of keeping an unwieldly non-profit organization financially afloat, particularly on the cusp of a recession ("Why can't they understand how long-term economic volatility is affecting our endowment, not to mention our donors?"). Deep differences in perspective, both of which touch on truth, from disparate points of view. But often I feel it's some sort of fundamental inability (unwillingness? I don't know) to bridge those gaps that leads to all-or-nothing statements, threats and deeper discord. Is it misunderstanding, mistrust? From my perspective, neither party is ever completely right (and, hey, neither are conductors, who, in an effort to appear diplomatic, attempt to stay out of any conflict whatsoever), and so it begs the question, what can we do to allay this general and ingrained antagonism?