Undoubtedly, the biggest problem facing classical music – both its industry as a performing art and as a recorded product – is not the short term cash flow crises of many orchestras operating today, nor the shrinking market share of classical music product; but it is what has been described as the “greying” of the traditional audience and the failure at developing a new audience base to take its place. The picture is clear: If no one is there to hear the music, who will care to buy it?

That is not to say that no one is trying to save classical music, but it does illuminate the larger issue at stake. While most orchestras and labels focus on refining their product, albeit at a higher cost, or window dress audience development programs for a younger public, the real challenge is not to simply sustain the older public, hoping for a new audience to find music as they age, like religion. Nor is it to fund educational programs for infants or teenagers under the premise that a percentage of children will become future audiences, or that if the children come so will the parents. Indeed, the one group most often left out in the pursuit of an orchestra’s mission are the direct inheritors of their tradition: the generation between the seniors and the students.

This so-called “Generation X” demographic, often considered as those born between 1960 and 1980, are thought to be the least viable consumers for classical music. The education programs for kids get the funding. The older audiences come to the concerts. The parents of these children – themselves, the children of most subscribers – are considered too busy trying to be successful and raise a family, too much in the process of accumulation rather than distribution of their funds, and too modern to appreciate the refinement of the music. This is the generation of listeners who grew up on Woodstock, Disco and MTV, clapping their hands and singing along to the music.

Orchestras and labels have tried to reach this audience by packaging “crossover” artists in pop marketing, or reissuing classical compilations as “sexy” product. But this attempt to seek the adult market without really earning its attention has never worked and so most efforts are abandoned. But rather than dismiss this generation as a cultural wasteland, evidence has shown that they may indeed be the Garden of Eden, the very source of freshness and vitality in a world that has become too distanced from a larger audience to really make a difference.
Before examining this statement, it may be helpful to provide an overview of the chronology of classical music performance. Such performances during the Baroque and early Classical periods were often limited in audience to either the aristocracy or the clergy or were performed in coffee houses or beer taverns. Ballrooms of archbishops and queens were filled with operas, ballet, quartets, oratorios, and other forms of entertainment suitable for a Rococo accessory.

But with the emergence of the bourgeoisie after the French Revolution and the development of the romantic hero, a parallel revolution in classical music performance occurred and transformed what was a social or ceremonial event into a heroic and virtuoso display of talent where the audience deified its heroes of the stage, podium and opera house. The art responded to the demands of its developing audience.

This paradigm of performance perhaps peaked with Wagner, and continued its momentum through Toscanini, Furtwangler, Rubenstein and Callas. Even until the 1960’s, a family ranging in age from six to sixty-six would watch Leonard Bernstein’s “Young People’s Concerts.”

But that was the beginning of the end.

Afterwards two things happened which would further reduce the relevancy of classical music in the lifestyles of its audience. Elvis and the Beatles ushered in rock music; and the computer would soon develop into a mainstream lifestyle product. Forget the passivity of television and the concert hall – concerts and consumer products evolved into a new paradigm: interactivity. Audiences craved a creative energy exchange with their artists and consumers wanted the freedom and fun of interactivity as found on the Internet.

So here we are in the 21st Century and the question remains: To Be Classique or Not To Be?

Again, this paradigm of interactivity does not mean the Philistines have arrived. Nor does it suggest that classical music is dead. Rather, the paradigm of interactivity is only one more ingredient in the evolution of classical music, perhaps itself another revolution, one that evolves into a hybrid between the social ambience of the Classical period and the formal etiquette of the Romantic period resulting in an interactive yet artistically intact form of presentation. Most young audiences believe Beethoven is not the problem, but it is the way Beethoven is presented that is the problem.

Herein lies the paradox. I quote Lisa Klein, assistant professor of marketing at the Jones School of Management at Houston’s Rice University. “[Companies] have to know how to be flexible within the boundaries of what customers want on one hand and their vision on the other. It is the hardest thing for new companies and difficult for older, traditional companies to do, too.” How can a traditional orchestra wanting to develop new audiences “be flexible” with its vision without alienating its current subscriber base? How can a record company facing exorbitant union recording costs hope to recoup its investment in a shrinking market?

I have argued that by embracing the Woodstock to MTV Generation, classical music organizations can find new audiences. The success of OrchestraX is an example of this type of audience development. Thematically-programmed concerts in non-traditional venues, informal dress and low ticket prices, Internet broadcasts, pre-concert conversation and post concert parties, multi media and mixed disciplines – all these are being employed by artist, composer and organization in an effort to attract younger audiences.

“Bells and Whistles” will never just do it, though. These elements expressed through artistic vision and integrity will.

However, it is also clear that where one experiment works in one place, like Houston, Texas, a city with large resources and talent pool and little competition, it may not work in another city or country. Europe has different issues, and while the audience development needs are the same – but the funding sources are different – the heritage and history of music in Europe will certainly ensure it will always have an audience. And where there is an audience, there are artists.

Our survey ends here with yet another question, one that has emerged from the debate over the much discussed book, “Who Killed Classical Music?” by Norman LeBrecht. To summarize my understanding of his ideas, the power of the agents, and the increasing costs of the product, from soloists to conductors to union wages for orchestras, have culminated in a Darwinian struggle for survival among the few that have the power. The rest struggle for money and gigs and usually stay there.

But the one factor in this equation which is often left out in the war between management and musician is the audience. Bernstein asked in his Norton Lecture Series at Harvard, “Whither music?” Our final question may be, “Whither an audience?”

To make classical music these days costs a lot and the burden of that cost usually falls on the consumer. Thus, the cycle continues – classical music is the entertainment of the rich and the charity for the poor. But the audience does not know this. Here is how classical music can market itself and succeed. Here is how the playing field can again be levelled.

If the audience was informed of why they must pay so much and what really is happening behind board room doors, classical music may have a chance after all. Costs would come down; concerts would be more affordable; administrations would become more efficient; and boards more visionary in their leadership because the audience would demand it.

Imagine fans of classical music revolting the same way that fans of Major League Baseball recently did during its threat of a strike (something commonplace among orchestras these days). People holding signs reading, “Play for the love, not the money!” and “Fans can strike too!” made front page news. And the threat of the strike ended because the audience was informed why the strike might happen and they said no way to both owners and players.

Perhaps people do not think such audience reactions would happen for something considered as irrelevant as classical music (we have come along way since the 1913 scandal of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring), but to admit this would certainly mean failure for us all. Indeed, the audience has more power than the musicians and the management, but they simply do not know it.

Because of the Internet and the expansion of the arts over the last 50 years since World War Two, there are still more orchestras than ever before, more composers receiving performances than ever before, more avenues of distribution of product than ever before, and more means of media. So, we should all be a little optimistic. But if there is no audience, what does all that mean?

Remember Marketing 101: Listen to the customers; they are always right. Somewhere along the way, our music has fallen on deaf ears. It’s up to us to make it meaningful to our audience, not simply each other.

Copyright John Axelrod 2003 30 April 2003