Seeing a symphony perform live is something like seeing a famous painting in person. Sure, the textbook copy shows you what the painting looks like, but you can’t feel the textures and the magnetism of the lighting without standing in front of the real thing. And when a good orchestra performs, the music is something physical that saturates the air in a way that a CD never could.
The problem for symphonies is that, like museums full of paintings, they get most of their funding from donations, and the world of donations is changing. With our generation’s exposure to the Internet and global interconnectedness have come a whole set of pressures previous generations didn’t have to face.
Within minutes of turning on a computer, most Americans can get updated information on the ravages of AIDS around the world, the latest earthquake, or dismal conditions of poverty. Maybe ignorance was bliss for Americans 50 years ago, but either way more and more people are feeling the pressure to do something about the world situations they can so easily access.
And with this more global mind-set come new choices for philanthropists. Namely, in the face of global crises, how can one justify donating money to the arts? And what happens to art, if we decide to support humanitarian causes instead?
As far as I see it, humanitarian causes trump artistic ones. The symphony requires donations in the first place because for the most part Americans don’t find it worth their time to go see performances. So while humanitarian causes need donations, I think the symphony needs to create some demand.
Government funding and increased reliance on donations must have, at first, seemed like a good solution for classical music. While a quick fix, reliance on increased donations can backfire ““ leaving the symphony funded, but isolated from the general culture. Instead of adapting to changes in society and preserving classical music traditions within that context, orchestras have been able to stagnate, hashing out the same material unceasingly. In fact, since current donors have a powerful say in what music is programmed, and since most current donors represent a small, retired part of the population, orchestras are pressured into avoiding the sorts of exciting programming or innovative presentations that may lure in a younger audience and make classical music relevant to modern culture.
Donations literally preserve classical music, in that they allow orchestras to perform it, something is lost when it assumes its current museum status. What is the point of playing classical music, or subsidizing it, if concert halls are left empty? The thing that has always struck me as most important is that the music is heard, and that its beauty and themes can move people and change their lives. It seems to me that on the deepest level, those who have dedicated themselves to classical music would care most about this goal, rather than the bare fact of classical music’s existence.
I can think of a few ways to broaden classical music’s appeal, from outreach programs that develop relationships between youth and the symphony to advertising targeting a younger and culturally broader audience. A big problem is that classical music is perceived ““ by just those people the symphony needs to buy tickets ““ as musty and outdated. This calls for some sort of reformatting of the music’s presentation.
After all, it’s the music, not the conductor’s bow tie, that matters. And I don’t buy the argument that classical music is simply not relevant to our world today, or that Americans are hopelessly uneducated when it comes to culture. People experience the influence of classical music every day, whether in movies, compilations, or through its influence on modern music. More importantly, the music can take care of itself, and people can love it ““ they just need to be reached.
LaRue is the 2007-2008 Music editor. E-mail him at alarue@media.ucla.edu.