I’ve been reflecting upon the point/counterpoint post that I put up last week, with posts by both Ilkka Talvi and William Eddins on the state of orchestras (and orchestral players) in this day and age. It’s a pretty vivid illustration of the two major positions held by musicians in the arts today. It reminds me of the red pill, blue pill scene from The Matrix, where Keanu Reeves’ character is given the opportunity to either live in the world of illusion or see the world as it truly is. On one hand, you have the view that orchestral musicians are spoiled and their ensembles are bloated and increasingly unwieldy and irrelevant. On the other, you have a view that says that musicians have earned everything that they’ve gotten through hard work over several generations, and that they need to both be cognizant of that fact and reflect it in their public attitudes.
It’s not necessarily that one view is “good” and the other is “bad”, but that each view reflects the filter of past experiences of each group. The adage “once bitten, twice shy” is an adage for a reason – people who experience betrayal and hardship over the years will often retreat to a protected fortress of cynicism and bitterness. Most of us start our careers with an optimistic, forward-looking ethos, but that can be eroded over the years. I think that, like a relationship, keeping a clear-eyed, positive point of view requires tending to achieve – which can be hard work. One must constantly strive to find positive elements in one’s workplace and overall industry. This can be tough – the maze of union rules and regulations can make progress a slow and painful slog, but there are always ways to work the system and try new things – all it takes is an orchestra committee with vision and a good working relationship with both management and the musicians that they represent. Progress is possible without outright destruction of what has been before, and conservation is possible within the context of innovation.