The Oregonian received some letters (judging by the fact that they printed three of them, there must have been a lot of letters received) in response to David Stabler’s interview of Elaine Calder, the consultant hired by the symphony to evaluate and fix what ails it. Here is a link to the letters.
I’ve selected some of the more interesting points of the letters below:
- George Cheek of Camas, Washington writes:
Elaine Calder could easily drive away my kind of subscriber with her “niche” presentations. I agree the balance of music could be better, but it seems sensible to me to, first, hang on to the audience you have and, second, seek ways to add to it without losing the faithful — who also are contributors. Do those who buy tickets to “niche” concerts contribute to the symphony’s deficit? . . . However, I strongly agree with Calder’s criticism of weak outreach efforts. I don’t know what was done in Spokane, but our seats were next to some that were sold separately each performance, and they never were empty. Almost always, they were filled with someone from out of town: Trail, B.C., Libby, Mont. — which meant spending the night — or Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, or Ritzville, Wash. — which meant a long drive home. If Spokane can reach out to its hinterland, why can’t Portland, which has a larger and better orchestra and better programs?
- Louis Sargent of Portland, Oregon writes:
To those of us who have been attending Oregon Symphony concerts for some decades now, your article in Sunday’s paper is no surprise. The days of financial viability through the passionate support of a select audience in any entertainment field are over . . . “Weak efforts at broadening audiences” is, I think, the major problem. . .
The last time I read about the problem of dwindling attendance, the response was a year of more Beethoven, more Brahms, and even more Tchaikovsky, with the Mendelssohn violin concerto and Rachmaninoff’s second concerto thrown in, in case one didn’t get the point. “You don’t do cartwheels on a precipice,” was Maestro (James) DePreist’s rationale.But you do if you wish to attract attention, and attention by other than a handful of diehard graybeards like me, is what classical music sorely needs.
- Curtis Heikkinen of Tigard, Oregon writes:
I am a longtime subscriber and donor to the Oregon Symphony. I just wish for once that David Stabler would write something positive about the orchestra. While his recent article about the arts consultant (Elaine Calder, Sunday O!, Dec. 17) deserves circulation, it seems that all we hear from The Oregonian about the orchestra is negative. There is a lot to be positive about at the symphony these days. The orchestra is playing at a superb level and is energized under the imaginative leadership of music director Carlos Kalmar, who is responsible for turning the symphony into a first-rate orchestra. Why can’t we have a story about the amazing artistic growth at the symphony?
As for Calder’s ideas, I feel that, if implemented, they could be a disaster for the orchestra. Calder cites an alleged imbalance of music, apparently believing that Christian soft rock and playing only what audiences want to hear is the way to proceed. It seems to me that this leads to “dumbing” down of classical music and to concerts consisting mainly of war-horses being played yet another time. This is a recipe for artistic stagnation, bored musicians and orchestral mediocrity.
At the risk putting words in people’s mouths, I’ll make some observations on these peoples’ comments. The overall theme seems to be “don’t fix what isn’t broken, but please do fix what is”. Clearly, these patrons all believe in our music director and his vision, and value the artistic progress that the orchestra has made under his tenure. You don’t want to alienate your core constituents while you try to get the (seemingly mythical) new, younger audience members in the door. If you mess too much with (and I hate this word to describe what we do) the product, it confuses everyone: both your loyal supporters and those whom you intend to woo.
The dilemma is that Portland (and Oregon as a whole) is a funny animal. We’re at a population level that doesn’t really support some programs like late morning coffee concerts or rush hour concerts, because we don’t have (yet) enough people who live in the central downtown region to support such concerts (try getting people in from Wilsonville or Lake Oswego for a 5:00 p.m. rush hour concert!).
I think one possible answer might be trying two strategies:
First, charge admission for open seating for all open rehearsals (except for subscribers and donors, who could have a pass for the Dress Circle section) – it needn’t be much, around $10. People will pay $10 for something new, and they might even come back for full-price offerings (whereas studies show that if you give something away for free, no one will want to ever pay for it) and it would build buzz for concerts. The way Carlos rehearses, we don’t often do a complete run-through in the dress rehearsal, so people might come back for the same series once they’ve heard what’s on offer.
Second, sell discount rush tickets one hour before every concert. They could be a block of seats in the upper balcony (where the sound is best, but you need binoculars) or they could be randomly distributed by the ticketing computer (this week you got row Z, but next week you might get Dress Circle). How much for these tickets? I’d say around $20 – 25. It’s cheaper than anything but student rush tickets and you might get an incredible seat. People in Portland love a bargain and the unknown. As for losing money – we’re losing a ton with the empty seats, and as the letters show (if you read the entire text at the Oregonian’s web site) sitting amongst a lot of empty seats is a big turn-off to those patrons who are already enthusiastically supporting the symphony. Plus, a line around the block for the rush tickets builds excitement and buzz (Hey – what’s going on at the Schnitz, I’ve never seen a line like that before for the symphony, we should check it out!)