http://blog.stephenpbrown.com/2010/06/orchestras-relevance-isnt-relevant.html?showComment=1277480037218#c4087347089135708416

http://blog.stephenpbrown.com/2010/06/orchestras-relevance-isnt-relevant.html

Thoroughly enjoying this engagement… and can’t wait for what’s next!

I think there are perhaps different ways of defining purpose, narrowly and broadly. The context in the League’s question is “what makes an orchestra matter.” Relevance is given the context of needs to be “essential in the community.” In a way, I have always thought that just by trying to answer and defend these questions, you prove that you don’t matter and you are not essential. It echoes what I wrote a long while ago on the commercial slogan: “Proving once again, there’s more than corn in Indiana…” You yourself write: “Relevance, to me, is a red herring – relevance is achieved by getting people excited about your work.” Hence my artistic vibrancy creates relevancy.

Now back to purpose, are we to just throw away an orchestra’s mission statement? Most statements echo something like “bringing classical music to the community.” A very broad perspective, just as I proposed with the purpose being “art.” And who am I to define art, or to define orchestral music? Who am I to dictate how orchestras should bring classical music to communities?

I’m interested in a structure in which others can define this for themselves. Perhaps a different twist on Cameron’s suggestion: an orchestration of creative interaction. Social media is not defined by the structure, the tools, it’s defined by the social interaction. But the structure and tools provide a framework in which others can define this social interaction, in which others can define their purpose.

A structure that facilitates a purpose defined by those who use it (musicians, music directors, staff, the community, patrons, donors).

I suppose this is a purpose as well. Something I had in mind, as you indicate. What I was trying to avoid is coming up with a one-size-fits-all purpose for all orchestras. That’s why I believe a good structure will facilitate a purpose specific for each unique organization.

Now I think you hit the nail on its head when you propose “a new vision for orchestras that is more focused on AB / PDQ than XYZ / AB.” I guess what I’m trying to say is that PDQ is unique to each organization, and should be defined uniquely. But we can provide structures in which this can be done.

And I could have agreed to picking the broadest question: change. As, like you say, it probably encompasses all other questions.

With all due respect, Marc, I don’t feel like you’ve told me anything with this statement; it’s just a series of assertions. You haven’t give me any indication of what you mean by “art,” or “relevance” for that matter, or why they’re important, or why we should care. You’re also offering me nothing that differentiates one form of art (like, oh, I don’t know, orchestral music) from another, nor anything that ties all art forms together. Tell me what these words mean to you, and then we can talk about structure necessary to make those things possible.

I don’t mean to suggest that structure isn’t an important (and interesting) conversation to have. If you, Marc van Bree, have a purpose in mind and are ready to move ahead and start talking about structure, that’s great — I fully support that. What I was trying to convey on Twitter (and one of the reasons I secretly hate Twitter is because it’s impossible to have conversations like these on it) is that I don’t think the rest of the orchestra field, from my observation on the OR website and at the conference, is ready to have these conversations yet. They’re still figuring the purpose question out – as demonstrated by the vote totals. The kind of conversation that I was hoping to see, and haven’t yet seen, is something along the lines of this: “Orchestras originally formed because of reasons XYZ and AB. While AB are still valid and meaningful today, XYZ have been made obsolete by changes in how we experience art in the 21st century. However, there is a need for PDQ that isn’t being met, and perhaps orchestras could play a role in that. Given that that’s the case, I propose a new vision for orchestras that is more focused on AB / PDQ than XYZ / AB, and here are the kinds of structures that would help with that.”

That’s why my preferred question was the one that nobody mentioned: CHANGE (if you were starting over, what would you throw out and what would you keep the same about the way we currently do orchestras?). That’s a pretty concrete, accessible question whose answer SUGGESTS purpose, which then suggests structure. (Relevance, to me, is a red herring – relevance is achieved by getting people excited about your work, and if you nail those other three people will be excited.)