Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:48:10 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Jon Johanning wrote:
>All right, so an orchestra will have to do something different from
>(and probably in addition to) that. But what? How can we look ahead a
>generation or two (I think that's the minimum time scale for "long-range
>vision" in this field) and decide what makes the most sense? That's what
>all the furor is about these days, as I see it.
Orchestras can remain museums if they so choose. Bernstein suggested that
this is already what has happened. He wrote that in an article in the New
York Times...something like "The Symphony is Dead."
I believe one can look ahead and choose from many possible paths. There
is the famous story of the rail roads. I remember reading in one of my
old management texts that at one time they had the chance to get into the
airline business. They saw their function as being a railroad, when had
they thought that they were in the transportation business, things might
have been different.
Most of my questions have really been about, "what is the purpose of the
symphony orchestra."
As for the overall vision...I still believe that much of what Koussevitzky
was all about...his vision as evidenced in what he did is potentially just
as relevant today as it was 50 years ago.
Karl
|
|
|