« Around Town/Music: Give the gift of music! | Main | PROGRAM ALERT: Met's "Magic Flute" to be telecast tonight in theaters; "Hansel and Gretel" plays tomorrow night »

December 21, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d835455a9953ef01675f1836f5970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference AROUND TOWN/MUSIC: Looking back on 2011:

Comments

MarK

Correction 1: Esa-Pekka Salonen became LA Phil's Music Director Designate in 1990, but his "tenure" as fully official Music Director started two years later and therefore he was "in charge" for 19 years (1990-2009), but officially led the orchestra as The Music Director for 17 (1992-2009) - definitely NOT 18, no matter how one counts.
Correction 2: Sidney Harth became LA Phil's concertmaster in early 1970s - around the middle of Zubin Mehta's "era" - and left in 1979, at the end of Carlo Maria Giulini's very first season in LA. Clearly, Harth was NOT with this orchestra during 1980s at all.
Question 1: what do phrases such as "the Phil’s “Brahms Unbound” cycle devolved to “Brahms Unbound”" and "Dudamel and the Phil offered persuasively for the new format" actually mean?
Question 2: do you really think that orchestral theatercasts can ever compete in popularity with operatic ones? These two beasts are of two very different kinds. Orchestral concerts are a far less visual form of cultural entertainment than fully staged operatic presentations. Therefore, imo, if orchestral theatercasts can achieve even 10% of popularity compared to those offered by MetOpera, it would be a tremendous success for the orchestra that is presenting them.

Bob Thomas

Corrections noted.

RE: question 2. I think that if they’re going to survive as a business model orchestra telecasts are going to have to be able to compete in popularity with the Met’s telecasts, at least on an event-by-event basis. Concerts are a less-visual form of entertainment than operas but I think they also have a broader audience base and, because orchestra concerts take less time than operas to attend, these telecasts may appeal to more people in that regard, as well. Moreover, I think the “backstage” features are a critical factor in drawing in customers.

But the bottom line is the bottom line; production companies and theaters aren’t going to show telecasts unless they attract people. I think it’s hard to judge results when we live in Southern California where we have MANY orchestra concerts from which to choose, including the Phil live. I remember when I was living in Ithaca, NY and our only orchestra concerts were through the colleges and an occasional visit by a touring orchestra. I would have loved to have seen the Phil in a theater back then. Perhaps the number of orchestra telecasts won’t approach the Met HD telecasts but the ones that get shown will have to draw well or the project will fizzle. I don’t think your 10% figure will cut it.

MarK

My 10% figure will probably never "cut it" in terms of making profit, but orchestras do many things that are not profitable and require subsidies, so this may become one of those. And i disagree that orchestral concerts "have a broader audience base" than operatic performances - in this century, whatever is more visual is automatically more popular. Anyway, my figure was highly arbitrary and i am perfectly willing to adjust it up to 20%.

Bob Thomas

I agree that there are many programs created that require subsidies — in fact, the entire system of music making in this country requires subsidies (i.e., donations) since ticket sales almost always cover only a fraction of the costs. However, in the case of a program such as telecasts where more than just the orchestra is involved (in this case, Fathom Events and theaters), I think some level of income will be required to sustain it well into the future. What that means in terms of attendance and/or dollars, and how that relates to something like the Met telecasts, is open to question. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in future seasons.

MarK

Of course, presenters and theaters are not going to spend money on anything that is not profitable for them, but i think that if an orchestra believes that these theatercasts are valuable for it in the long run (PR, name recognition, prestige, building future audience, etc.), then that orchestra might decide to subsidize such a venture itself, by paying to presenters and theaters, just as many orchestras have often been doing for recordings and tours.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment