M. Devard Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>This is certainly not news.  The question is: where do we go from here?
>If you don't think what people are currently doing works, then offer
>alternatives.  And by alternatives I mean ideas likely to result in the
>continued life of orchestras.  Or do we take some higher road even if
>it means the whole thing collapses?  So far the good that has been done
>is that there are still orchestras in existence when, in purely economic
>terms, by all rights there shouldn't be.  Everyone in the business is
>looking for this magic bullet.
>
>Cursing the darkness is all well and good, but lighting a candle...better.

If we can take a lesson from history, perhaps it's time to return to the
era of patronage.  Until the 19th Century (more or less), many composers
were supported by royal patronage.  While I don't believe we'll see the
NEA, or any other government body, acting in that role, why not look to
the true sources of power and influence in this country: the corporations?

Would it really be so bad to have, say, the St. Louis Symphony become
the Anheuser-Busch Philharmonic, especially if it resulted in a stable
orchestra and reasonably priced concerts?  We may not have Babbitt
festivals, but we would have more commissions from folks like Corigliano.
It's not a perfect solution, and wouldn't help the avant garde (but isn't
that what universities are for?  <ducking>), but it would provide a
source of funding, as well as education (most large corporations have
educational foundations).

In today's environment, we have to be pragmatic.  Great composer trading
cards, anyone?

Robert Floyd