| Well, I'll offer up that (at least to my very limited knowledge) there ARE a very few orchestras where adherence to tradition (even the extent of only hiring on the basis "who studied under who" and "are they able to emulate the precise playing styles and sounds") that are able to sustain themselves without ever delving into "anything newer than 1800" (or 1900 or.....).
Even our little local, semi-volunteer symphony recently ran into problems when the conductor was NOT charismatic, did NOT seem to care one whit about the audience NOR the musicians, and were on the verge of bankruptcy. Suddenly a change in weather course, the hiring of a new, fresh and energetic conductor who related to both the audience AND the musicians, who brought in new music and.... VOILA! Out of the red and into "SRO" signs at every concert. The Board of Directors went along with it (as if they had any choice at that point) and now everybody is happy.... although we certain COULD use a decent concert hall. I imagine there are still a couple of muscians who quietly gripe about "that new stuff" but they're smart enough to realize that if it weren't for "that new stuff" they wouldn't have a symphony to play in at all.
My point being that it isn't only the large, professional orchestras who really need to consider audience tastes and/or the "ensemble" of management, musicians, audience, and music in order to maintain the "marketplace" interest that "pays the bills". |