Round-table discussion: what future for the symphony orchestra?

This is just the briefest of summaries and doesn't do justice to the full discussion, which included questions about repertoire, inter-personal relations, funding models, ossification/vitality, seedbed/museum, the problems associated with rehearsing and presenting new work and much more ...

Some 'headline' memories:

James Dillon talked of orchestral and arts managers needing to take "intelligent decisions".

Steve Cottrell suggested that academics and practitioners who work in or with the arts need to stick together in the tough times that lay ahead (surely not knowing that today the UK government has suggested they intend to implement 40% cuts in many departmental budgets).

Marshall Marcus urged us to articulate the value of the activities we practise and pleaded with us to let go of the principle of entitlement which underpins a lot of thinking about the funding of orchestras.

Emile Wennekes showed how orchestras have already adapted to new patterns of consumption (mostly digital) and suggested some of the challenges posed by new forms of mediatisation -- a concept that is key for his own research. He referred to the 90% of those who listen to classical music who have never attended a concert.

Kathryn McDowell suggested that the diversification of the orchestra's activities will ensure its continued success and pointed to a catalogue of LSO activities to support her case.

Delegates were quick to question the motivation and purpose of the plural nature of the activities today undertaken by orchestras.

Those delegates who asked questions showed that there were no taboos and that everything was up for discussion, including, thankfully, searching questions about the rhetoric of diversity and accessibility and the practice that is undertaken in its name.

The final question struck a chord and seemed a fitting way to conclude: the panel were asked about the internal diversity in orchestras, something which is less often discussed than external diversity. This of course involves considering where the performers and employees of the future come from, where they are trained and all the rest of it. Marshall Marcus was direct in his response. He said that orchestras are like a mirror. If you do not recognise yourself in that mirror, then you are not going to be engaged.

Exactly what is the status of the concert performance in relation to all of the orchestra's activities? Will it always be top of the pyramid? Or will a different model emerge? The answer seemed to be that the live performance will remain and should remain as the most important aspect of orchestral activity. This question lies at the heart of much of the discussions that were had here and elsewhere in the conference.

It was a shame that it was not recorded for a wider audience, but no doubt it meant that the discussion was more frank than might otherwise have been the case.

The question now is how best to continue to develop relationships between academics and orchestras. That is an urgent priority.

Discussion welcome! If you were there and wish to supplement this post with your own memories of, and responses to, the discussion please do comment.