allow, don't tell

​Most organizations in classical music are nonprofit organizations.  In the US, that means that the IRS officially recognizes them as providing a service valuable to the public as a whole.  They have unpaid boards that administer them on behalf of the public (the true owners of all nonprofit organizations).  This provides perks for the ensembles and the donors--donations become a tax deduction for donors and the nonprofit can avoid paying some taxes.  With this model, however, comes the mentality that classical music provides something like cultural vegetables to the population.  There is no need to be competitive or to change what we do (ever) because of our inherent (oftentimes unexplained or explained with dubious logic) value.  I would submit that we need more ensembles that are for-profit organizations, that seek to fill a specific niche in the market rather than provide a service that is worthwhile.  Many would consider this “selling out>’  Yet, the former does not exclude the latter.  Ensembles can provide a valuable service to society by being fundamentally profitable and competitive on the market.  An orchestra should compete with video games, movies, and sports events.  Why should someone attend a live performance?  One way to figure it out is to have multiple iterations of ensembles (many of which will fail) that build on the traditional models or change them altogether by providing a service to people who are willing to give up 1) their money and 2) other things to attend to it.  If you tell someone why a joke is funny, you get a funny look without pulling any genuine laughter out of the other person.  We could avoiding making arguments about why classical music is important if we put out art that is important to people.  Saying this “should” evoke certain emotions is not a great way to start a story or a joke.  And it’s a terrible way to start a concert.