ENO…again.

Well ENO is in the news again, this time for the proposed cuts to their orchestra and the ensuing resignation of Music Director Martyn Brabbins.

First, let’s look back. Almost a year ago ENO had their ACE funding halved, were only awarded it for one year, and were told they’d have to move out of London in 12 months time. ENO proceeded to mount an absolute blinder of a campaign to save itself. Very cleverly, it didn’t major on job losses or the affect on artists or composers. I say this because any job loses will appear tiny to the public and politicians (witness over 10,000 losing their jobs at Wilko’s with no one batting an eyelid), and to be honest most people don’t care any more for artists and composers than anyone else losing their jobs. Instead ENO talked about the affect on the wider public. On audiences, on young people no longer able to access discounted or free tickets, on those touched by their Breathe programme and so on.

The second clever thing was that they got this story out of the classical bubble. It was in mainstream news (not just the arts pages) and morning TV. Celebrities you’d definitely not associate with opera got involved on social media.

And the result of this clever campaign? ENO, amazingly, got its funding back for 3 years and ‘only’ had to leave London at the end of this period. Kudos to those at ENO who mounted such a brilliant and passionate campaign - the management (more of them later).

ENO’s recent production of Peter Grimes

ENO have always been upfront in saying that things still won’t be easy. Money has to be spent on studies and preparation for a move out of London (about 10% of their funding). About 10% of funding is ‘lost’ thanks to inflation and they gave an indication that while they’d still work at the London Coliseum, it would be for less of the year, and that work out of London wouldn’t be in traditional theatrical settings, but more site specific, presumably to ensure they do something different to the other opera companies which already serve areas out of London.

It was a not a huge surprise to me therefore that an announcement was made that 19 musicians would be made redundant and that the rest of the orchestra would be moved onto part time contracts. It doesn’t take much to connect an effectively smaller budget and new way of working with needing a smaller, more flexible orchestra. But of course classical music social media went into meltdown decrying the decision, blaming people, tagging MPs and so on.

I hate to be heretical but is a part time, smaller orchestra really such a bad thing? It’s a lot better than….no ENO at all, which is what we were looking at less than a year ago. Plus no one suggests that orchestras like Aurora, Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment and London Symphony Orchestra, which are entirely freelance and size flexible aren’t superb orchestras. Of course it’s desperately sad that people will lose their jobs and it may indeed be hard for orchestra members to secure work to fill their diaries, but the sad truth is that classical music and opera is funded to a size far bigger than the actual market can sustain.

And Martyn Brabbins’s resignation. ENO put out a statement saying how surprised they were by this, for which they also got howls of disapproval. But I know, having reported to and served on several boards, that as Music Director Martyn WOULD have been party to all these decisions. I am sure the board, including him, thoroughly interrogated the proposals and he would have been part of the sign off of the plans. If he disagreed with them that would have been the moment to resign. Of course, there will be board minutes to prove this.

It’s at this point that a very ugly new trend seems to have emerged - blaming management and the board. There’s a (largely true) saying that if a concert or performance does well at the box office then it must be the programming that was great, and if it does badly it must be the marketing that was wrong, and this all had a whiff of that. No hint of gratitude for management saving the entire ship. No, the management was ‘clearly’ in the wrong despite  the fact they had very clearly signalled that ACE’s instructions would necessitate a new way of working. 

What I really find hard to bear is this implication that management are inept, over-paid or somehow actively malign (or perhaps all three). First, the vast majority of people who work in arts management do so because they love it and want the sector to grow and flourish. No one goes into it to sack musicians. Second, every person who gets into it, like the artists, has forgone a more lucrative career to do so. I was just last week noting an entry level job being advertised at £18,000, barely minimum wage. You generally don’t give up a more lucrative career unless you love what you do. Sure, the CEO of ENO will be on a much larger salary (though hugely smaller than a comparatively sized commercial company) but with that comes the enormous job of running a company - contactable 24/7, night after night at the theatre, managing a staff of 100’s. I’ve only run much smaller organisations and it was relentless and exhausting, I can’t begin to think how it intense it must be to run something like ENO. 

All of this said, I can’t imagine how difficult this must be for the orchestra (and now chorus), wondering about their jobs, having that question mark over their heads while continuing to perform. But similarly, can you imagine being a staff member right now at ENO? Working long hours, having worked your socks off to save the company and now being berated left right and centre on social media? It must seem thankless. And it’s not just ENO. I know colleagues across the classical sector absenting themselves from social media just to isolate themselves from the toxic comments, sadly often from musicians, online. The effect on staff morale right across the arts can’t be underestimated.

And there’s the board. I’ve seen so many posts that say ‘it all comes back to the board’, the ‘chair must resign’ and the like. I’d love to know exactly why. Because the much much more irresponsible thing would be to continue business as usual and run out of money entirely in 3 years time. And let's remember, that board members are all unpaid, give significant amounts of time and expertise and, for the most part give large amounts of money too. Being demonised on social media will not make this an appealing prospect for current or potential future board members. The Chair stepping down at a difficult time will not do anything other than destabilise the company and make some keyboard warriors feel a bit smug.

And of course the other organisation to be demonised is Arts Council England. I’ve referenced this in my prior ENO post, but yes while they may have got this one wrong, the staff of ACE don’t deserve abuse more than anyone else. They also work at the Arts Council because guess what, they love the arts. And be careful with what you wish for. The alternative to an arms-length body like Arts Council England is funding being awarded directly by government, and who would have wanted the likes of Nadine Dorries being directly responsible for awarding funding?

Now of course, staff and board are not beyond criticism (neither are artists). But blanket assertions of incompetence with nothing firm to back it up are not the way to do it, and simply drive a wedge between people who basically all want the same thing. ENO has done amazingly to retain it’s funding and I think that it’s new model could, with imagination, be something brilliant - a way for ENO to reach more audiences (because lets not forget it’s about audiences really, not artists, not management, not the board), with greater geographic spread, with it’s unique mix of repertoire and mission. With a little more dialogue and a little less shouting down of people on social media ENO could still have a very bright future.

Those Arts Council funding decisions: 6 months on

I first wrote this blog during the initial reaction to the announcement to the last Arts Council England (ACE) National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) funding announcement back in November. It’s probably for the best that I’ve sat on it and only now got around to publishing it, with the benefit of more reflection and time. During the initial period of reaction I saw many ‘hot takes’ and much anger on social media (something recently repeated with the BBC’s recent classical music decisions, which I won’t go in to here), and I’ve been reminded of something that Barak Obama said. Namely; “The world is messy, there are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People you are fighting…share certain things with you”.

And indeed the decisions made by ACE were messy, and there was no way that they wouldn’t be. Arts Council England is to some extent damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If they had made no changes to the portfolio they would, rightly, been criticised for not supporting new and emerging organisations. But given the pot of money hasn’t changed, the only way these organisations can be supported is by reducing or removing funding from others. 

The portfolio can’t stay the same forever and not every organisation remains interesting or relevant for all time. Many have, to be honest, rested on their laurels, and while they may have been innovative in the 1980’s, no longer remain so now - newer, younger more nimble organisations have come along, deserve to be funded, and the 'establishment ‘organisations haven’t always reacted to the competition, leaving many looking a little… lacklustre in comparison.

Take new music. Much has been made of organisations that have lost funding in this area. But fantastic new ensembles like Manchester Collective and the Paraorchestra have gained funding for the first time. Neither is dedicated to new music but both major on it. Maybe new music no longer needs to exist on its own, and is better off presented within the narrative, thematic programmes that organisations like Manchester Collective so excel in? We don’t have to do things the same way forever.

I say the pot hasn’t changed (and it hasn’t) but it’s interesting to observe the narrative that quickly was established of these being ‘cuts’. Organisations and areas of work have been cut but the overall pot hasn’t changed. As well as Manchester Collective and the Paraochestra, other classical music organisations gained, with the National Children’s Orchestra (whose board I sit on) gaining funding for the first time and Orchestras Live, which promotes performance and engagement in under-served areas of the country getting a very substantial uplift. I point this not just as a matter of fact but to also highlight the way the communications around the announcement were so very badly handled.

Some of the reaction to the changes though was unedifying. ACE and the government were accused of ‘defunding culture’. The CEO of ACE has been compared to Stalin by composer Thomas Adès, who also directly targeted ACE’s Head of Music, someone who I know from experience works tirelessly for our sector. Others have said that the decision to cut English National Opera (of which more anon) points towards some sort need to conform to ‘pro Brexit optics’ - which seems somewhat far-fetched. The Royal Opera House was described as being ‘underfunded’ and the actor Zainab Hasan said “The government has done nothing to nurture us…and everything to destroy what makes our industry brilliant”

None of this hyperbole does our industry any good and only underlines people’s prejudices of ‘entitled luvvies’. You’d have thought from the reaction on Twitter that some mass cut of arts funding was underway, when, in fact, as we’ve seen, the same amount of money (if not a little more) , was being invested.

Government funding of the arts isn’t a meaningful vote winner (as in, it won’t sway enough people to matter to political parties), and the extreme ungratefulness exhibited by some in our sector for continued funding of the arts at the same level as the previous funding round, (not to mention newer initiatives such as the hugely beneficial Orchestra Tax Relief, worth £62m since 2016), while many in the UK are struggling to put food on the table or to heat their homes isn’t doing us any favours.  

I was reminded of the extremely negative reaction many in the arts had to the governments support during the pandemic, particularly the ask from the Department for Culture Media and Sport that that support be acknowledged publicly by those that received it. It was reflected back to us in one advocacy group I was part of that those in the DCMS, having fought very hard for the support from the Treasury, were disappointed by the sectors response and questioned why they’d bothered. Again, shoring up the arts probably wasn’t on many voters minds during a pandemic, and personally I thought the level of support the arts received, while not perfect, was fairly generous from a governing party not exactly known for its generosity to the sector.

The demonisation of ACE also makes me uncomfortable because it is an organisation full of people that love the arts. They, like everyone else in the sector, has taken decision to forge a career within arts and culture, because it is something they believe in. They didn’t take a job at ACE because they wanted to become a ‘Stalin of the arts’.  They joined to be part of the UK artistic community and to play a role in ensuring as many people experience it as possible. Like all of us, they may make some decisions others might question, and some which are mistaken, but they don’t deserve the opprobrium aimed at them.

All this said…there was at least one glaring oddity in the decisions, that being the decision to remove funding from English National Opera (ENO). 

ENO seems, to a relative outsider to the opera world like me, to be doing everything right for ACE. It’s accessible, with its under 35’s ticket scheme unrivalled by competitors. It’s relevant, in repertoire, production style and through initiatives like their drive-in opera. It tackled a relevant health issue through its ‘ENO Breathe’ programme. It has been bold and imaginative in how it tackles classical music’s dire problem with diversity. It, unlike many arts organisations, does marketing well and understands social media (their instagram is utterly fantastic). It’s an unpretentious, relaxed place where you’re as likely to see people unwrapping their home-made sandwiches in the interval as you are to see people quaffing champagne.

There’s actually nothing wrong with suggesting that ENO do more out of London, but it is utterly unfeasible that a company of 300 people could move with 20 weeks notice - something that has now been recognised with the recent announcement (/climb down) of three years of funding at close to previous levels. The BBC Concert orchestra has, after all, been in the process of moving to a still unannounced location outside of London for several years now, and that is an organisation probably less than a third of the size. And, of course, ENO has already moved out of London - Opera North having been set up as English National Opera North back in the 1970s. Forcing ENO to compete with its former self doesn’t make any sense.

Of course, there is much nuance here, and many external pressures. ACE needed to shift funding out of London and perhaps ENO represented an easy way to obtain a chunk of money to do this. The argument that London needs two opera houses is a nuanced one, and this is not an age that favours complex debates, so perhaps this was felt to be an easy cut to make. One might argue that cutting the Royal Opera House would make more sense - its audience is more monied, more influential, and that combined with its ‘high end’ brand should make private fundraising easier. Cutting an organisation frequented by the establishment in a way that ENO isn’t however was probably considered politically impossible by ACE though.

The decision to cut ENO (and others), with very little transparency as to why, risks undermining the legitimacy of the whole NPO process, in which trust is so important. ACE attaches significant strings to its funding, understandably, and its agenda sets much of the sectors direction. For the most part that agenda is in alignment with where the sector wants to go anyway - with an emphasis on access, participation, engagement and diversity. But having decisions made in seemingly arbitrary ways and for reasons not fully divulged starts to undermine that symbiotic relationship between ACE and its clients.

If there is to be sector belief in ACE’s investment principles, then how can an organisation that has done so much to meet them, particularly in comparison to its very direct and relatively unscathed comparator, be cut? Why is it that long term issues, such as the fact that ACE funds four symphony orchestras in London (not to mention other chamber orchestras), continue to be un-addressed at the same time?

No one doubts that this was a difficult decision for ACE. Money had to be moved out of London, but surely given the time that was had to make the decision a way could have been found to both  ensure decisions were made in a really transparent way (this is public money after all), showing that they directly relate to ACE’s much publicised investment principles, and to handle the very predictable media-fallout in a better way - it is a huge shame that the good news story of organisations gaining funding for the first time was almost completely drowned out.

But, then, as Obama said, life is messy…

What arts copywriters can learn from…hot cross buns.

As I was stuffing a hot cross bun into my mouth this morning I looked at the packaging. That packaging had persuaded me in a matter of seconds while in the queue at Marks and Spencer that I HAD to spend money on this product, and as I looked at the packet while waiting for the bun to toast, I realised how great the copywriting is.

View fullsize

It doesn’t just have butter in it. It is enriched with unsalted (a nod to healthiness) butter.

It’s rich and aromatic. God, you can almost imagine how good that will smell in the toaster.

It doesn’t just have raisins and sultanas in it. Oh no, it’s packed full of juicy fruits.

The spices aren’t just any old stuff.  They’re unique. A blend and they’re warming too.

3 lines of copy, but I’m already salivating. I know exactly what they’re doing, but it’s STILL working on me.

How often do we achieve that level of desire-generation with our arts marketing copy? Despite the fact the product is probably significantly more exciting than a hot cross bun?

As a bit of fun I wondered what the copy would look like if it were written in the same style as much classical music marketing…

Probably something like:

Thomas Rocliffe invented the hot cross bun in the 14th-century, a baked masterpiece which has resonated through the ages and which are a firm customer favourite. We are thrilled to announce that within this package sit four buns, made by our world-class cooks. They contain a spirited mix of flour, fruit and spices, E471, E472a and E470a and the flour has been blended by the speciality LQZ45 machine in Macclesfield which was installed in 2005. The buns have been made under the direction of the CEO of our contractor, Belgian-born Frederic Lumberhof, who gained an MBA at Warwick University in 2001 and who is one of the most sought-after managers of his generation. His continental flare is sure to guarantee an exciting and innovative taste experience.

Still as excited about those hot cross buns?

In Defence of Grayson Perry and Tree Surgery

Well, Grayson Perry seems to have landed himself in a little bit of hot water. The Telegraph has reported that, in a forthcoming edition of The Art Society Magazine, he’s posited that the Covid crisis is an opportunity to get rid of ‘dead wood’ in the cultural sector.

“I think every part of life has probably got a bit of fat that needs trimming, a bit of dead wood. It’s awful that the culture sector has been decimated, but I think some things needed to go. Too often, the audience for culture is just the people making it – theatres with whole audiences of actors, or exhibitions only put on to impress other curators.”

Cue outrage. 

The Guardian reports that Perry has been accused of being in ‘an ivory tower’ and ‘out of touch’.

“Grayson’s work often pokes fun at the liberal elite that buy it, but perhaps he’s just coming full circle as he’s joined their ranks.” Sarah McCrory, director of Goldsmiths Centre of Contemporary Art, says in The Guardian. “His timing is disgraceful … I’m not sure why he’s so out of touch and unempathetic – perhaps it’s because he’s become the mainstream.”

It’s hard to know where to start with this. But I’ll come out and say that I actually think that Perry is spot on, and that the knee-jerk defensiveness of the response in fact underlines our sector’s (arts and culture) lack of willingness to change or be self-critical (yes orchestras, I am particularly looking at you).

I’d argue that in fact Grayson Perry is the absolute opposite of being out of touch or in an elite. He’s voicing opinions that almost everyone in the arts and culture industry would harbour but perhaps not feel able to voice, and also expresses sentiments that would likely be held by much of the general public, many of whom might question why the government funds the arts at all.

That line about the arts world putting on shows for the arts world particularly really hit home with me. Of course we all LOVE going to a show and seeing it full of our industry buddies, but we’re not supposed to be doing it for people like us. Of course all our industry chums will tell us how much they ADORED our work, while probably bitching about it behind our backs. It’s an unhelpful echo chamber, and people rarely think to ask the poor paying public what they made of it.

Before I go on, let me just say that I realise the pandemic has had tragic consequences for many who work in the arts. Hundreds, probably thousands, have been made redundant. Freelancers have seen their work dry up. I’ve been unemployed for a time too. Its been, and continues to be, a dispiriting period for everyone in our sector. However that doesn’t mean that we can’t, like Grayson, take a step back and look at the big picture. At the end of the day our sector doesn’t exist to simply employ people. 

I’ll let you into a secret at this point. At the start of lockdown I was talking to a few industry buddies, and we started pondering about which orchestras might not make it through to the other side. I realise this sounds a little…evil. But I can’t believe that we were the only ones having these thoughts. And yes, we, like Grayson, were talking about ‘dead wood’. Surely every part of the arts has dead wood organisations? Galleries putting on shows that were cutting edge ten years ago, theatres still trotting out the same work that they made their name with when they were founded, dance companies that have lost their drive and vision, organisations still run as if nothing has changed around them since their foundation, unable to move on or change.

Some while ago an organisation I was working for had an away day and invited in an outside speaker to provide a ‘provocation’. They spoke and asked us, as an organisation reaching what might be termed organisational maturity, what our purpose was now. Had the organisation perhaps now achieved what it set out to do? In which case, why carry on? They invited us to look at other organisations within our sector which had, perhaps, lost their way. What was their purpose? What audience did they serve? What did they do that no one else did?

These were hard questions and really made us all think. The examples given of those ‘zombie’ organisations focussed the mind. They were, in truth, organisations which everyone in the industry had a wry smile about when discussed, but somehow they still persisted - but we didn’t want to be like them, and the challenge focussed our minds and led us to redefine the organisations’ purpose and mission.

At every funding round, the Arts Council gets roundly criticised from all sides. Its a job that will never please everyone. But one of the things that attracts criticism is that continued funding of what might be termed ‘legacy’ organisations, often in the capital, perhaps some of those organisations referred to at our away day. With a limited pot of money, it is hard to redistribute it to new, exciting, organisations, without making hard decisions about those legacy organisations. More often than not those decisions are not made. After all who wants to be responsible for shutting down orchestras or ballet companies, with the resulting job losses. But surely, at some point, organisations have to be disappear? It IS a little bit like a wood - it has to be managed. If you just let the old trees grow, all the sunlight gets blocked out and eventually you have no bluebells, no wildlife and, importantly, no saplings.

So the Arts Council gets criticised for this. But now, at a moment when that thinning out of organisations might occur through other means, Grayson gets shot down for voicing what many privately think and for suggesting that that dead wood, which is without question there, might get cut out.

No company is sacred, and no organisation has a right to exist. Within the orchestral sector in particular, I often find that an organisations mission is simply…to exist. To pay its musicians and staff. And that simply isn’t a good enough reason. If you as an organisation cannot clearly set out why you exist, what your unique selling point is, what you do for your audience and community which no one else can, then you DO have to ask why the public purse, be it through the Arts Council or otherwise, should continue to fund you.

These conversations are difficult ones, all the more so when each and every one of us knows people whose careers have been devastated by this pandemic. But we shouldn’t shy away from having them, and we shouldn’t always react to positions such as Perry’s with such angry denial, but instead actively invite viewpoints such as these, engage with them and debate them. For if we want arts and culture to flourish, we should not only protect our heritage, and long-established organisations, but allow space, time and money for new organisations, encourage experiment and innovation and clear some branches to allow new saplings to grow.

Streamed concerts: Full fat delight or pale imitation?

I guess we all have small treats we enjoy. One of mine is cereal. I’m usually a porridge kind of guy, but I do love a bowl of cornflakes on occasion. Or Rice Krispies.

Both of course should be served with ice cold milk. Yum. 

That milk has got to be rich and creamy. Full fat. Maybe Gold Top. What it definitely should not be is skimmed.

It looks like milk. It smells like it. But when you taste it, it’s like a memory of milk. Empty, coloured water.

I feel the same way about digital art. And specifically, streamed classical concerts…

Lets think about that full fat Vs skimmed experience as it relates to classical music. The real thing might go like this:

I first meet my concert-buddy for dinner. We have a catch-up and delicious meal, and saunter to the hall. I see a friend at the bar and say a quick hello. 

In the hall I sink into my seat, the lights go down and there’s a sense of anticipation. As the music starts I enjoy watching musicians exchange glances, smiles and gestures. The music envelops me and while my mind wanders on occasion I don’t worry about it - I always return to the performance, and concerts are always good thinking time. 

After an interval G+T we’re back in the hall, and now I’m totally caught up in the music, the finale a real edge-of-seat experience. The audience goes crazy. The musicians look wiped-out but ecstatic.

We retire to the bar for chats and post-performance analysis, and I say hello to a couple of the musicians. I return home with the performance on repeat in my head.

Now the streamed version…

The first hurdle is making myself commit an hour or two to watching a concert on my computer. That’s a long time looking at a screen. Especially after a day of Zooms and spreadsheets. 

I microwave my sad meal-for-one, retire to the sofa and tune in. My internet goes down, so my first impression is a frozen image of the Orchestras CEO, giving a presumably riveting introduction to the concert. My internet resolves, so I can ‘enjoy’ the thin tinny sound of the concert through my laptop speakers. The director seems fixated on two players, even though someone’s ‘violin face’ is not the most attractive. My attention wanes and I find myself on Instagram. 

Despite there being no audience, its all filmed as if it’s a normal concert. Concerts at best have limited visual interest, but its somehow worse when on camera. I find myself on Twitter. Then on Facebook. After twenty minutes I’m on my work email… I wrest myself back to find the first piece wrapping up. The musicians clap themselves awkwardly.  Somehow all the weird stiffness of a classical concert is amplified in a stream, and there’s none of the live thrill to compensate

Since lockdown occurred I’ve tried to watch 3-4 concerts online. I’ve only stuck one out, mainly because it was short and filmed from a musicians home - genuinely a unique experience. Most I have zoned out of. None have held my attention, and all have suffered from a lack of visual invention. Now, as lockdown eases slightly, if there’s a remote chance of me going out for a drink or dinner, I’m going to be doing that instead of spending MORE time  at home with my laptop.

Right now one other thing about streamed concerts bothers me. 

Those without audiences, but filmed as concerts, are frankly weird. Audiences aren’t dispensable, indeed they’re a crucial part of the concert. As Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment Leader Maggie Faultless said in the Guardian a while back:

“The best performances involve a three-way relationship - the music (i.e. what’s on the page) the audience and the performers. The performers react not only to the written notes but to each other and most importantly, to the audience”

To me, it seems dangerous to pretend audiences don’t matter in the making of music. I know its tricky right now, but I think that lack of human engagement is one reason why lots of these concerts feel as flat as shredded wheat to me.

Of course, I don’t really think digital art is really as worthless as skimmed milk (even that has the saving grace of being richer in calcium). Some digital content (witness the OAE’s famed theorbo vid) is highly worthwhile. Digital can add a whole extra layer to the live experience with film, fancy lighting or virtual reality, or you can make a whole live performance happen digitally, as with the amazing audio experience of the Donmar Warehouse’s Blindness. But if you’re going to put a performance online you’ve got to rethink it for a new medium - use that medium, don’t work against it - especially if you can’t have an audience there. Make it shorter, snappier, let us see behind the scenes. Theme it, make it personal, tell stories, use directors who make short films, animation or pop videos to bring a new visual language to it.

Otherwise, to be frank, I won’t be tuning in, I’ll be down the Co-op browsing the breakfast aisle.

Article originally written for the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment’s Value of Digital Art initiative, a 6-week conversation with their audience about the value of digital art before the launch of the OAE’s own digital platform, OAE Player oae.co.uk/oaeplayer

The Audience Triple Threat

We all know about one issue with arts audiences, and specifically ones for classical music - age. Look around any concert hall in North America or the UK and it’s undeniable that it’s those in their senior years which are turning up. How much the audiences are replenishing is open to debate, but evidence from the US certainly points to the audience ‘ageing out’. That’s polite language for ‘getting older and dying’. Of course a concert hall is never going to be populated with a majority of 30 somethings - they have other stuff going on like families to bring up, but its undeniably depressing going to a concert where the main impression is not of the music but of a vast sea of zimmer frames (Walkers in North American), sticks, grey hair and slowly shuffling audience members.

However I don’t believe that an ageing audience is our only problem. There are at least two more:

Participators not receivers 

This report got widely shared when it first came out, looking at the changing nature of arts audiences - described as a arts revolution. The theme of this revolution? “"the exuberant expression of self.”

Young people now are increasingly unhappy at just being a passive observer. They want to create. They want to make music, write, make art. Everyone is a critic, able to share their opinions on social media, blogs and websites. As the author Chris Jones states, “Young people don't just want to talk about our culture, they want to be engaged in the storytelling and, most definitely, in the process of judgment.”

So how do we respond to this? Well the theatre world is probably most ahead of the curve. Organisations like the Theatre Royal Stratford East have involved audiences in programming while the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester has stablished an ‘Audience Manifesto’.

This is harder for classical music. Of all the art forms we’re perhaps the most ‘We perform, you listen’. There’s less obvious scope for participation, and we should be investing serious thought and energy into how we address this issue.

As Chris Jones also observes, despite the millions pumped into audience development programme for what can be termed ‘legacy’ organisations, audiences have both declined and also stayed resolutely white, old and monied. It’s probably the subject for another blog but I’d suggest this is due to the failure to radically change product and business models to adapt to changing tastes, instead focussing efforts on trying to get people to come to an experience (the current one) they’re clearly not interested in, in sufficient numbers at least.

A poorer generation

While sitting in the opera the other night I was musing on some of this, and observing the audience. I was also thinking of a friend of mine who absolutely loves the opera. He used to have a subscription, attending multiple shows a season. But then, he got too old. He’d been attending on an under 30’s package, where you could buy four operas for $86, getting pretty decent seats if he booked early. Suddenly he hit 30 and was too old for the programme. So now it costs him over $100 for one equivalent seat to one show. It’s not as if his salary sky-rocketed overnight when he hit 30, so it just means he doesn’t go as often now.

Obviously $86 for 4 shows is not a sustainable ticket price. Opera is an expensive business. But the situation does reflect another trend - that for the first time, the younger generation is likely to be poorer than their parents, with the current younger generation in the UK apparently earning £8,000 a year less than their parents. If this trend continues it will have major repercussions not just for audiences but also for fundraising.

So what do we do?

There are no easy answers and no magic wand. But I would suggest that the combined effects of a declining, ageing audience, and a potential younger, poorer audience with different needs present the arts with a serious challenge that can only be addressed through radical action. It won’t be enough to do a side project on audience development that ticks a funders box. We can’t pretend that we can somehow keep offering the same product and continue to attract audiences in the same numbers as before. If ‘legacy’ organisations (the big, established opera, ballet, orchestras and theatres) want to survive they have to radically re-envisage their artistic product, while staying true to their mission, and at the same time have to countenance some serious changes to their business models as a result. Unpalatable as this may seem, this may well involve taking the decision to lose some of their current audience in order to serve and develop a future audience.

This is hard and it often won’t be popular. I’m not confident that many organisations will do it, but it can be done and it has been done - just witness what Executive Director Nina Simon has done at the Santa Cruz Museum of Art and History (and do read her brilliant book The Art of Relevance).

I first wrote this blog in 2017, and in that time I feel the audience trend has only accelerated, yet arts organisations, and particularly orchestras, continue to, at best, timidly tinker around the edges of their product rather than plunge whole-heartedly into change. The present situation with Covid-19 presents an opportunity for such radical change - but that’s something for another blog.