There was sustained applause and whooping after almost every composition w heard the last three nights. There was also isolated booing after the Cage piece. I have been going to Hill for decades and have sat through the good, the very good, the bad, and the ugly, but I have never heard booing here before. In Europe it’s common for one half the house to clap, the other to boo. But we are a patient and hospitable audience; that’s part of our success with performers. Who wouldn’t like to play before such a receptive hall? Some might say “undiscriminating” or “stubbornly enlightened,” but that’s clearly a slander. The Cage piece seems finally to have overstepped our high threshold for outright rejection. Then there was attrition: two people sitting behind us walked out and the chap next to us did not return after intermission. That’s three defections all within just an arm’s length. I also heard some bitter remarks in the hallways and elevator – about feeling swindled — even though you wouldn’t guess this from the UMS Lobby. I’ve had it confirmed that half the house had been unsold. So do the math. Folks, we got a problem.

Administrators at the UMS have said they don’t want audience size to be the indicator that’s used to measure success. What they care about is helping people to have a favorable introduction to modern and contemporary music, maybe even to turn some people on to it, to make these forms more acceptable. When I hear this, I am filled with pride and gratitude to be living here and benefitting from this organization. Where is there another like it?!

Sure, a smaller audience is not a sign of failure; but neither is a large one.

Allow me to repeat myself. Hearing eleven new-to-the-ear compositions in three days, representing a kind of music the general concert-going public hardly ever hears, is not the best way to achieve these worthy goals. Receptivity declines soon and sharply. We need more time and closer exposure if we are to assimilate each such work –if our attitudes are to change. (How many people actually learn how to swim when tossed into the deep end of he pool? Few swimming instructors use this method.)

To start with, let’s acknowledge that after having clung to the 19th and early 20th centuries as the outer limit of most concert programming – with only an occasional score thrown in on which the ink is still moist – we cannot make up our lag in taste development in one grand leap. We need the long haul.

Here is just one way to start this conversation. Please contribute your ideas and bear in mind that we who write may not be representative of the entire audience. The UMS says it wants to hear our thoughts.

If I had the chance. I’d invite the SFS back. They are phenomenal. I liked almost everything I heard. Yesterday’s program, too, was very fine. Have them give 4 concerts. Each program will have two traditional pieces, selected from the Baroque to the Neo-romantic canons, say, Bach to Ravel, Respighi, Rachmaninoff or Strauss. And in between something by Cowbell or Webern or Boulez or middle Stravinsky. It could also be an American composer – Barber, Harris, Riegger, etc. THIS LESS FAMILIAR PIECE WILL BE PLAYED TWICE in two consecutive concerts – work A in concerts 1 and 2, work B in # 3 and 4. THAT’S ENOUGH FOR ONE SEASON. Repeat the following year with similar programs. This allows for a gentle immersion rather than a tsunami. The second time you hear something, you can recognize some things and discover new ones.

I believe this is a more effective way to change minds and hearts and interests.

In a previous post I acknowledged that UMS does not make up the individual programs; it more or less has to take or leave what is offered. What I’m hoping is that concert presenters, such as UMS, who worry about the future of this musical culture will agree with each other on an effective model and urge orchestras to try it.