Karl Miller wrote:

>Does an orchestra have a responsibility to the art of music?

Yes, and I think that an orchestra represents the art of music.

As opposed to couching this in terms of "responsibilities", I prefer the
process of an organization developing a "vision", and then goals to reach
that vision.  Overall, I don't think that orchestras do have a stated
vision.  As an example, the Philadelphia Orchestra apparently will devote
all or most of their next concert season to 20th century works.  Does this
programming fit into the orchestra's vision? They likely have no vision,
and without one, there is no consistent direction.  The programming
decision bears no relationship to last year or to future years; it's
simply a knee-jerk reaction to the end of the century.

Continuing to use Philadelphia as an example, they are reported to start
recording performances on their very own label.  Is this their long-range
plan? - lose a contract with a major record company and replace it with a
small-time home-grown label.  Where's the planning? What's the long-term
vision?

It's hard enough for an orchestra to remain strong and viable in the U. S.
with clearly defined goals; without them, the whole house could crumble.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]