Tom Conner relays some interesting comments about the coming Philadelphia Orchestra season by the former and present program annotators of the orchestra. Without discussing these passages in detail, I think that the main issues they raise (together with Tom's own remarks) are: what should and must an organization such as the Phila. Orch. do to "survive until tomorrow so give them what they want," as he says. And, is the up-coming Philly season a step in the right direction, or a tragic mistake? First of all, every thing and everyone is transient. If Mr. Jacobsen, the former annotator, has a good pipeline into the orchestra's management and is right in fearing that subscriptions will fall below 50% of the house (somehow, I think that, come opening night, things will be looking brighter than that), then perhaps the sun is at last setting on a great century-old musical institution. And perhaps it will set on many other great old names in the classical world in the coming years. If so, so be it. But we can't go down without a fight, and I think that the Phila. Orch. management and players are at last determined to do just that. But this seems to worry traditionalists such as Jacobsen almost as much as the possibility that the orchestra might go broke, if not more. For example, he complains: >Certainly the way this upcoming season is being advertised on the local >radio is, "Come here the nice sounding, entertaining music." How would he have them advertise? "Come hear a couple of hours of boring, unpleasant music that will set your teeth on edge! It's like pounding your head against the wall--it will feel so good when it stops"? Perhaps he is upset that they feel the need to advertise at all. The good old days when everyone in Philadelphia society who was anyone was born with a silver spoon and an Academy of Music seat in their mouths, and they could serve as the backbone of the orchestra's patronage, are gone for good, friend Jacobsen. The orchestra will have to project a pleasant, non-threatening--and yes, entertaining!--image to the public (as much as this causes some of our gorges to rise) and somehow get itself noticed in the ubiquitous electronic media uproar, if it is to have any hope of attracting a new audience. A local "alternative" newspaper recently ran a squib lamenting that the poor orchestra had fallen so low that it was actually reduced to telemarketing to fill seats. Well, Lordy, doesn't every arts organization get on the horn these days to drum up an audience? How long ago was it when Alex Bell invented that gadget? Personally, I would much rather have an arts organization disturb my supper than a long-distance company or stock-broker. I agree with Mr. Connor that a prestigious musical group should do everything it can to educate the musical public, but I think that, while the Phila. Orch. has historically done quite a bit in that noble cause, and is gradually stepping up its efforts (and probably will work even harder at it once its new music director comes, whoever that will be), it cannot bear that burden alone. Every one concerned about the future of classical music must do their part to help replace the generation of music lovers which is inevitably dying off with new recruits. We should all try to identify the young (and not-so-young) people around us who might be interested in learning more about CM and help them along. The way to do that, though, is not to project the attitude that I am afraid too many of us habitually do: we are the elite, the elect, who know what the "right stuff" is, and we are too good to associate with an orchestra which is supposedly only interested in selling out in order "to survive until tomorrow." And we want nothing to do with the low-brows who like programs "stuffed," as Mr. Jacobsen puts it, >with such pieces - many of them audience favorites by now - as Bela >Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra [and] Debussy's La Mer." What miserable stuff! What an outrage--playing "audience favorites" when you could be spending your time better by playing "audience dislikes"! And the "Gurrelieder"! Why play that reactionary old thing, which we hear practically every day, when you could barrage the audience with a good dose of some "real" Schoenberg, and give them a true education? What will certainly condemn classical music to extinction is this constant mutual back-biting among the CM cognoscenti, this dividing up into cliques who shun each other because "that bunch doesn't understand and appreciate the *real* music, as we do," and, when newcomers show up with a bit of curiosity about CM and stick their heads in the door, slamming it in their faces with haughty contempt for the uninitiated who are ignorant of the sacred traditions (or, in some cliques, ignorant of the sacred avant-garde), instead of finding some way of welcoming them in, and letting them feel that they will have a good time among friends. (No, no! Music is not for having a good time, or anything so morally corrupting as pleasure. It must always be "educating.") It seems to me that the Phila. Orch., along with others, is beginning to feel its way toward doing just that, and deserves our support and encouragement. Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]