NfPV Real Music

Introduction
Let me begin with a disclaimer about the title. Having spent years in arts management I have learned a thing or two about marketing. Clearly, this is a provocative title; but I do not want to leave the impression that there is such a thing as unreal music or that any music is designed for unreal people. I just wanted to get your attention.

My background is that of a professional musician. I am a composer who got his training at Baylor University and at the Eastman School of Music, where I earned my doctorate. My passion for the music of 18th and 19th century Western Europe is real. It is why I am who I am and do what I do today.

At the same time, I have for the last ten years been teaching and studying arts management?its history and practices. I have learned to apply the word marketing to discussions about the arts without hesitation or embarrassment. My work in this area has convinced me that the near future holds both danger and opportunity. I enter this discussion in an effort to help ensure that fifty years from now there will be a place at society's table for this music I love.

I intend to briefly examine the "arts delivery systems" out of which Western music evolved. I will then discuss the current situation faced by the arts generally and music in particular. I will present some thoughts about examining the fundamental "product" that we "sell" or "buy," and will conclude with some thoughts about where we might go from here in an effort to ensure the future of the institutions which perform for us the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms.

A Brief History of "Arts Delivery"
From the origins of Western music until relatively recently, the process of creating, rehearsing, and performing music was done under one roof?often literally so. A patron would commission a composer to write music for an ensemble that he (and the occasional she) would support. The performance would be presented for the patron's friends, colleagues, or important associates. In terms of how this system operated, it made little difference whether the patron was a member of a religious body, the state, or was a wealthy merchant. There was a close link among patron, composer, performers, and the audience.

In the nineteenth century, with the rise of the middle class and the relative weakening of the state, new systems developed. In the visual arts, the Paris salon became a place for discussion as well as the origin of the sales gallery. In music, the origin of ticket sales and subscription concert series can be traced back to this era. Composers became less associated with a patron, performers earned a living by teaching and playing gigs, producers came to the fore to "put it all together," and audiences could pick and choose with their disposable income. Eventually, at least for large ensemble (orchestras and opera, especially) institutions were created to produce their performances.

In the twentieth century, as the end of huge wealth in the hands of individuals loomed, institutions took over almost sole control of presentation of the product?hiring the performers and selling the tickets. Composers, cut out of this loop, sought professional refuge in academe. This happened at a time when the rate of change in Western society increased exponentially. Creative artists have always mirrored or prophesied social change in their work. Twentieth-century composers did this at a time when the compositional process was the farthest removed from the audience that it had ever been. To compound the problem, the reward system for professors is almost exclusively concerned with the intellectual content of their work. For composers, this meant that their job security was far less based on how good their music sounded than on how well it could be analyzed.

Orchestras, playing in larger halls to sell more tickets, had grown larger to fill those halls with sound. In order to ensure their future they primarily performed the safe music of the 19th century rather than the difficult music coming out of the universities. Thus, the composer-performer-audience feedback loop was severed. By the middle of the twentieth century, the structures through which music was created and presented resulted in the presentation of music which had become removed in time as well as in physical and cultural distance from the audience. Without the rejuvenation of music woven from the fabric of the culture, the concert hall became primarily a museum. There is absolutely nothing wrong with museums. They are essential for us as a society. But music has far more than that to offer.

The Current Situation
Studies, polls, and our instincts tell us that a very small portion of the population of the United States is predisposed to be truly interested in any particular art form. (This is not the same as being curious or non-antagonistic.) Morison and Dalgleish in their book Waiting in the Wings claim that only 5% of the population can be categorized as "Yeses," those who form the core potential audience for any arts event.

We also know that the arts education which our children are receiving is not designed to improve this situation. On the contrary, we seem to be slipping in this regard. This, coupled with the aging of the arts audience, suggests serious long-term problems for the future of the arts.

Finally, the financial condition of arts organizations is not good. To cite orchestras in the U.S. as one example, while audiences grew more than 50% from 1971 to 1991, this growth in ticket revenues was more than offset by an eight-fold increase in expenses. U.S. orchestras on average earn only between 35% and 40% of their budget from ticket sales.

The Roots of the Current Situation
A variety of factors work together to create this situation. Among them are megatrends in national demographics, economics, and politics (with a small "p"). The first demographic issue of which we are all aware is the leisure time crisis. The crisis is that, for most Americans, there is none, or so it seems. The increase in single parent families has developed a large pool of utterly exhausted men and women who, at the end of any day are simply thankful for the opportunity lift their feet off the floor and fall asleep. In addition, two-adult Baby Boom households, as a result of the staggering increases in the cost of living over the last thirty years, are required to pursue two careers to maintain the lifestyle to which they became accustomed growing up in single income households in the fifties and sixties. These people too arrive home at the end of the day (however late that might be) just as exhausted as their single-parent peers. These two groups represent what used to be the dependable core of any arts audience in the United States. Today, even those with a "disposable income" are hard-pressed to contemplate leaving the nest once they get home in the evening.

Another significant demographic trend is the profound change in the cultural background of the U.S. population. Today, most urban populations are made up of a majority whose background is non-European. In the very near future, the majority of the U.S. population will be descended from non-European roots. We are already a multi-cultural nation. This trend will only continue. While the music of the Western European tradition has much to offer any population, this change in the background of the population will inevitably have a profound influence on the marketing, education, and programming activities of all of our arts organizations.

A second megatrend influencing our artistic futures is economic. The performing arts are among the most labor intensive industries in society. There is very little way to improve the economic "productivity" of a symphony orchestra beyond a certain point. There will always be fixed amounts of time required for rehearsal and performance. The classic assessment that it will always take four musicians to play a string quartet illustrates that, while other industries have been achieving cost savings through mechanization and organizational restructuring, that is an option not available (or at least not acceptably available) to the performing arts industry. Since almost all other industries have been insulating themselves from the ravages of inflation by such methods, the performing arts have been subject not just to that inflation but also to the fact that labor costs have been increasing exponentially as a portion of the nations economy. This helps account for the eight-fold increase in the expense budgets of U.S. orchestras over the last twenty years.

The third major megatrend is perhaps the most troubling. This is the arts' loss of political acceptability, not just in the halls of Congress or state capitals, but more importantly on the street. In an era where there is ferocious competition for society's resources to support worthy causes, the arts, which in this country have a history of being seen as elitist, must move beyond being viewed "non-antagonistically" to be seen as vitally important by as large a segment of the population as, for instance, supports quality education for our children. This may be the greatest challenge to the arts community as we enter the twenty-first century, because it represents a profound change in the way we think about ourselves and our work.

The final root of the situation I would like to point out is not a "megatrend" but is the result of Western assumptions about the nature of success. That is, we assume that we are succeeding when our organizations are getting bigger and doing more. According to Fritjof Capra in his book The Turning Point this seduction of bigness creates structures which dictate corporate morality and ethics. As an example, Phil Donahue, when he developed his talk show in Ohio was noted for the extremely high quality of his interviewing, his guests, and his topics. Today, in order to support the large infrastructure which he has developed, has become known for the bizarre nature of his guests and even his own actions on camera. The arts are not heading Donahue-like down the road to cross-dressing, but the need to support large arganizations dictates, among other things, board structures which include high-powered fundraisers more than individuals who understand the art or who can represent the cultural needs of the broad community.

What Is the "Product"?
Transitional moments, and I believe it is clear that we in the arts are at such a moment now, call for industries to re-examine the nature of the product they produce. Currently, the telephone industry is evaluation whether its product is phone calls or communication. The successful companies will be those which decide a broad spectrum of communications is their product. Libraries are deciding whether their fundamental product is books or information. The libraries with a long future are those which decide that information is the the definition of who they are.

For myself, I believe that in music the "product" is larger than the specific work being performed. For centuries people have been drawn to music not just by the music itself but by what it does for them as individuals. The functions of music for us all include entertainment (not a dirty word), enjoyment, catharsis, escape, fulfillment, revelation, enrichment, self-identity, and connection with others to name a few. For society as a whole, music represents traditions, the opportunity to define itself, and the glue or bond which holds it together. Awareness of these functions does not exclude the modes of expression which we have been presenting. Instead, it opens up new ways of thinking about what we do and provides us with the potential of new opportunities for making what we do a powerful part of the lives of many more members of our communities.

In essence, our product is whatever the fundamental meaning of the music is for each listener. For myself, the purpose of art generally and music specifically is to help the individual understand and value who they are within their society and to facilitate communication and cooperation among individuals. But for every member of the audience there will be a unique response to the question, why is this important to you. We need merely allow for a wide variety of answers.

Such discussions often become controversial or threatening at the point where we begin to grapple with the question of what music is worthy of our consideration. Before I move on to suggestions about the means of ensuring the future of high quality music, I would like to present some vocabulary for categorizing art which might prove helpful when I do.

There are two ideas I would like to discuss. The first is the aesthetic focus of works of art. There are two categories of emphasis into which most works of art fall. These are depth of content and immediacy of impact. Works emphasizing depth of content intend to challenge the mind and spirit and offer rich rewards for repeat exposure to them. Works emphasizing immediacy of impact are designed to have a profound and immediate effect upon the perceiver. These foci are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, great works of art attend to each of them equally. Whether Beethoven symphonies or the work of the Beatles from the mid to late 1960's, great music grabs you immediately and continues to offer much value each time it is experienced.

The other, related, idea is the artistic intent of the work. Here again are two categories that most art represents. The first is reflective. Works falling into this category emphasize depth of content as a focus, attempt to educate or edify, require some effort to be appreciated, and, in many cases, derive from an "imported tradition." The second category is what I call visceral. These works emphasize immediacy of impact, attempt to entertain, are characterized by ease and accessibility, and, often, derive from an indigenous cultural tradition. Again, these categories are not hard and fast nor are they mutually exclusive. However, it makes it clearer why what we have come to call "popular" (or visceral) art can survive the market test and why reflective art should not be expected to do so.

The presence of reflective art is both a demonstration of a healthy society and the means by which it remains so. Such art is the basis of what we as professional musicians hold dear.

Suggestions for the Future
The most important and immediate need faced by the arts is the development of a broad base of support for the work we do. This is not just for the purpose of ensuring government funding for our activities. (Indeed, this is a relatively minor reason.) Rather, in a time of extremely limited resources, if the arts as we know them are to remain socially viable, large segments of our communities must be able to respond personally and passionately when asked the question, why are the arts important? We must undertake programs to develop this base of support. Activities could include intimate involvement in educational programs for children in the public schools, for adults in the workplace, provision of hands-on arts experiences for both children and adults, and programming of reflective works of art which speak to many different segments of the community.

A second task should be to re-examine our relationship with our "consumers." The National Task Force on Presenting and Touring the Performing Arts has said, in the book An American Dialogue, "'Audience' is simply too limiting [a word] to describe the array of people, beyond our valued ticket-buyers, whom presenters and artists must engage. Community implies a fundamental partnership that makes presenting and touring both complete and compelling." This concept of partnership will provide us with exciting new ways to think about the kinds of things we might do as presenting organizations.

Along with this, we must re-examine the fundamental nature of our "product." We can develop a pan-stylistic and pan-cultural approach to valuing reflective music and, where possible, participate in the presentation of that music to the public.

To support this process, we should actively encourage, through commissioning and performance, new work which "speaks" in the vernacular or in indigenous languages. It should not be forgotten that much of the great music of the past was based upon what was for those composers and audiences familiar, indigenous music?Bach's hymn tunes, Haydn's Ländler, the Romantic era composers nationalist melodies and forms, Wagner's nationalist themes, Bartok's Hungarian folk music, and Copland's Appalachian Spring and Rodeo to name only a few.

Finally, a behind-the-scenes consideration of organizational structures will be helpful. The necessities of bigness have created splits between artistic and administrative personnel. This has led to little constructive dialogue about programming. Artistic directors feel unheard on matters of quality; administrative personnel do not believe adequate attention is paid to real-world feedback on marketing and programming issues. Internal partnerships should exist which do not arbitrarily divide programming, marketing, fundraising, and other aspects of our arts institutions. Cross-disciplinary dialogues will be valuable.

We must also develop means of encouraging grassroots arts activities. An article in the July-August 1990 issue of The Futurist listed nine forces reshaping America. These suggested that population and economic changes will eliminate any "mass market." The future lies in micro-marketing. Increasingly we will find that, like politics, all the arts are local.

In order to support grassroots activities we will need to consider a mosaic approach to arts organizations. We may use a single structure as an umbrella to cover a number of nearly autonomous presenting organizations. The umbrella concept will allow economies of scale in administrative operations where possible and will also allow the cumulative visibility of the various activities to be seen as a unit, enhancing the community's understanding of the value the arts represent to them all.