Thursday, August 12, 2010

Are symphonies still 'too big to fail'? ||

This is strangely familiar.

Sounds like a broken business model, is this "dance halls for millionaires"?
The Sonics left, and things penciled out just fine. There are plenty things to do, and attraction in the area (fill in the rest of the anti-sports entertainment rant).
Let a private company blah, blah, blah.", and if they leave, they leave.
He [young French conductor Ludovic Morlot] is the Kevin Durant of maestros.
Well to-do people in luxury boxes and corporate ticket holders using the entertainment as a backdrop for their business dealings can find some other venue for that, we don't need (insert entertainment in a public building here).
I noticed that David Brewster did not mention how much public money we have pumped into our grand music hall, sort of skipped past that part.

Anyway, the Everett Symphony cut short/suspended much of its activity, many, many others are in a similar position.

I am sure somebody like Sherman Alexie (or, whatever the symphony equivolent is) would testify in federal court that the symphony is a cherished institution, and it would be disappointing for those that enjoy that form of entertainment. Still, it is much like other forms of entertainment that has had the benefit of public support in some way, but still fails as a business.

Having decades of joy go away would be sad, I can empathize. I know all of the arguments.

— Mr Baker
One of the interesting civic dramas in the next few years will be the effort to turn around the fortunes of the Seattle Symphony. I say "civic" drama, because the plight of these orchestras very much involves a city's reputation, particularly its ability to attract corporations and to serve as a symbol of a region's rising cultural reputation. Such orchestras are nearly always "too big to fail."
Are symphonies still 'too big to fail'? ||

Good luck with that argument.