With Strings Attached
 

As promised in the re-entry post, I'll be posting some of the writing I've been doing in Music and Ethics here at the cellar. A lot of the book hinges on case studies, both real and hypothetical, as an entry point for talking about how different ethical values conflict in the world of professional music. I think most of what I put up here will be those case studies, since they are more interesting, and can be more broadly engaged, than some of the more technical analysis writing.

So, here's one of the first case studies. It's on the issue of funding for the arts.

With Strings Attached

Gordon Struan is on the board of directors for Green Valley Orchestra (GVO), a professional regional orchestra known for its innovative programming and willingness to perform new works by modern composers. Struan’s role is to maintain and develop financial donors.

GVO, like many such ensembles, is having a difficult time meeting its financial obligations. Although their concerts are well-attended, the income from ticket sales alone is not enough to pay the salaries of the orchestra members. Without significant donations from outside foundations and wealthy patrons, the orchestra simply could not continue to perform.

Struan is faced with a dilemma. His three largest donors all lost large sums of money in the collapse of the real estate market, and have informed him that they are no longer able to donate to the orchestra. Struan must raise $6 million, or the orchestra will have to cancel their season, declare bankruptcy, and close their doors forever. Two potential donors have indicated that they might be willing to step in and give the needed money, but both come with strings attached.

The first potential donor is a corporation named Altria. Altria has long been known in the arts community for their philanthropic activity; they support many regional performing ensembles, and seem especially interested in supporting innovative groups, like GVO, who perform new works. Altria is also the parent company of Phillip-Morris, a cigarette manufacturer that aggressively markets its Marlboro brand to children in 3rd-world countries. Altria’s support of the arts seems like a carefully calculated PR strategy to improve the public image of their company.

The second potential donor is Victoria Wagner, a well-known and very wealthy member of the local community. Wagner has never shown an interest in supporting the arts before, so Struan is understandably curious when she contacts him with the offer. In the ensuing conversations, however, if becomes clear why Ms. Wagner has had a sudden change of heart. It turns out that her beloved nephew is a struggling composer, and has had difficulty getting his works performed by professional ensembles. Ms. Wagner makes it quite clear to Mr. Struan that if she writes a $6 million check, she expects the Green Valley Orchestra to debut his latest composition.

So, Struan is left with three options. He can accept the money from a cigarette giant hoping to buy some public good-will, he can accept the money from the doting rich aunt looking to launch her nephew’s career, or he can refuse both and close the doors of the Green Valley Orchestra.

Here are some of the interesting questions that this case study raises:

1. If GVO takes the money from Altria, does that association lend tacit approval to Altria's business practices?
2. Replace Altria with Playboy, a company that some patrons of the orchestra might find offensive, but which the board members and orchestra members do not. Does it change the equation?
3. If GVO chooses to perform the work by Wagner's nephew, it makes an implied statement about the value of the piece. GVO is known for performing works by new composers, and their patrons have come to trust the musical director's choice of program. With this in mind, does it make a difference if the composition by Wagner's nephew is a well-written piece, and might have been debuted by GVO without the aunt's interference? Does it make a difference if he is an already established composer?

There are, obviously, more questions to explore in this case study, but I'll leave it here for now, and let you all have at.

Enjoy!

Good stuff!

I think it's pretty simple:

Take the woman's money, but don't undertake any contractual obligation to perform the piece. If it's worthy, perform it. If it sucks, blow her off (after the check clears). You don't do anyone favors by subsidizing medicority.

Take the company's money. If you're worried about the moral implications of taking money from a company that engages in questionable business tactics, you can comfort yourself with the fact that the more money Phillip Morris gives to you, the less they can spend on recruiting more smokers. Or you could even use the money for a anti-smoking campaign in those third world countries.

(I love answering ethical questions. I never know how far I believe what I spew.)

Personally? I'd take the money from both.

I've never heard of Altria, and I don't know anyone who would associate it with Phillip-Morris. They have a history of supporting the arts; it's not like some composer just died of lung cancer and they're trying to buy their way out of the bad PR. Furthermore, 'making a statement' would be useless in this case; Altria won't be hurt by someone not taking their money, so it wouldn't even be effective as a boycott issue.

And presumably, one could quickly and quietly preview the nephew's existing music to make sure it is above an 8th-grade level before agreeing to take Mrs. Wagner's money. Even if it's only mediocre, you can get away with a lot if you call it "avant-garde." I doubt every piece is liked by every patron as it is. Just ask the audience if they'd prefer to sit through one crappy performance during the year, or never get to attend another performance again.

And if you take both, and invest the extra $6 million for a whole year before budget time comes up again, then maybe you'll have fewer agonizing decisions to have to make in the future.

But then again, I've always had a pretty cut-and-dried utilitarian approach to ethics. Moral quandaries have never seemed to be as gut-wrenching to me as others say they are.

Definitely take the money. It's called *patronage*, not whoring, for a reason. I don't think there's an ethical dilemma here. Or if there is one, it is not substantial enough to keep me from taking the money and playing the music.

This one is really hard to answer. It's in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent. What other corporate sponsors can we think of (no need to involve Playboy :angel: ) who are sufficiently well-behaved to not get SOMEBODY irked? Indeed, the name Altria isn't going to be immediately recognized as tobacco-related by a lot of people. On the other hand, those who do recognize it... well, I guess we're just negotiating the price, Ma'am. (I write as one whose college education was largely funded by the Reynolds family fortune. I would have to lean toward taking the money. They have a long history of philanthropy in this area, they sponsor other groups, and it's just damned hard to find a donor who's never done something you disagree with. Beyond that it's just a question of degree.
Who else is important, if the board doesn't care? Other donors? It should be easy enough to talk with them privately and say, we have this offer. I'm not sure it's a good idea to take it. What do you think? (This may have the side benefit of shaking loose some more cash from the smaller donors.)
Have all these works been of uniform quality? Surely there are some stinkers out of the lot.
It does not matter. He could be love-child of J. S. Bach and Johannes Brahms. People will see the names on the program and assume he got the nod because of his aunt's influence. This would be less true if she had been a long-standing supporter of the orchestra.
Very bad idea. This only delays the inevitable by a year. She undoubtedly has more than enough influence to make other people think twice about donating.

A well-constructed dilemma sir, what with its many layers!

Is it strange to think that, in "real life", there would be so many more layers? The political interests... the secret drinking problem, and thus, low life-expectancy of the top donor... the spiteful board of directors... the finicky first violinist's refusal to play anything stained with corporate crime.

Looks to me like the thing is constructed to turn sort of inside-out? Which do you value most: the continuance of the GVO? The integrity of the name of the GVO? Of the integrity of the art of the GVO?

The artist knows the integrity of the art. The false artist confuses the integrity of the name with the integrity of the art. The laid-off artist is delivering potato chips to convenience stores at 4AM.

So, it seems to me, the best choice is for the GVO to take corporate money, and to recover any of its lost integrity in its name through charity work in schools.

That being my own answer and surely part of the point is to develop an answer and not the answer, I can see many sidetracks where the thing can be derailed. The complicated ethics of selling tobacco to people whose life expectancy is only 45 anyway. The price of tickets and how the people come into the money they use to pay for those tickets. Whether the value to the audience is integrity, or merely an enjoyable night out. The value in even auditioning the kid to see what he's got. The irresistible "take both" proprosition.

Good stuff! Moar!

Get everyone in the orchestra together and have a democratic vote. ;)

I think the heart of the matter is right there - what's the difference between the two associations? If GVO takes money from a company with socially irresponsible business practices, I don't think there is a return of social capital from the orchestra to company. In other words, GVO doesn't transfer some of their goodwill to Altria, and then GVO has less and Altria has more. Rather, I think Altria is trading against the general public goodwill toward philanthropic support of the arts. GVO doesn't lose in this case, but Altria does gain.

The transaction between GVO and Wagner (the rich aunt) is a very different thing. There, the orchestra is actually trading away some of its social capital to the young nephew. Their is an implied agreement between the patrons and the orchestra that the music selected for the program is selected on merit, because of the musical director's assessment that it will provide a certain musical experience for the audience. The agreement to perform the work trades on that implied agreement, and subverts it.

If that's not clear, think about the difference between the case as present, and a possible alternate. In the alternate, the aunt spends the $6 million to rent a hall, hire musicians, promote the concert, and give away tickets. It's an identical performance to the first case, the only difference being that it's not actually under the auspices of the GVO name. I think it's pretty clear that the alternate case wouldn't have the same impact on the composer's career, and would not be an acceptable solution for the Aunt. She wants the name; she wants to trade on the presumption of merit. That association between the GVO name and the performed work has specific value that is different, and more damaging, than the association between GVO and Altria.

If we are worried about where Altria's money comes from, shouldn't we also be worried about where the rich aunt's money comes from?
What if she's involved in companies that use sweatshops and child labor or produce dreadful pollution? What if she is a shareholder of Altria???

I've been thinking about this, Zen, and I'm not sure it matters in quite the same way. Money is fungible, and I don't think people would say certain dollar bills become saintly or evil. So, if the transaction of dollars doesn't have moral implication, then what we're left with is evaluating what the dollars are purchasing. In the case of Altria, they are implicitly trying to purchase public goodwill with their ill-gotten dollars. The earning of the money is what got them into public bad graces, the spending of it is trying to resuscitate their public image.

With the rich old aunt, it's not quite the same thing, I don't think. Even if she earned the money by doing evil things, she's not trying to compensate for that by purchasing public goodwill.

So you're saying, it's not so much how they got the money, but what they want in exchange for it, that is more important.

Hmm. Ok. Good answer.

(When did you last hear THAT in the cellar?)

I'd be willing to take the money from either donor actually. People who care to know what Altria is doing aren't going to be bought off by a few concerts, and if the nephew's music does stink, then lots of people will know it stinks. At worst, people will have sat through one bad concert.

I dunno, but my guess is it was probably also preceded by this:

I would choose Altria over the woman. One thing to consider is that the very survival of said orchestra is dependent upon getting sufficient funding. That fact alone would erase any apprehension of taking "dirty money" from Altria because otherwise the orchestra would not exist. Of course in the future if our funding becomes more stable I would consider dropping them, however desperate times call for desperate measures.
I would not take the funds from the woman because in doing so I would be undermining the integrity of the orchestra. I would be allowing it to just become a tool for someone who is not interested in its continued existence, other than for using it to give someone an upper hand that he hasn't earned.

Doesn't the program give the background, like a mini-resume, of the composer being performed?
Wouldn't that be the place to make the connection between the benefactor and the composer?
All open and above board... let the audience connect the dots and judge the piece.

I'm guessing the Aunt wouldn't be at all satisfied with that arrangement. Altria would insist on being a publicly acknowledged donor, the aunt would likely insist on being an anonymous donor. If she were publicly acknowledged, it would remove the benefit of her nephew's debut.

"Just perform it and let the audience decide" isn't a very satisfying solution, at least not to me. It ignores the obligation that I think the ensemble has to choose works of a certain caliber. It would be similar to saying "It doesn't matter what a museum puts on their walls, just let the visitors decide what they think." The act of hanging it on the wall confers some sense of judicious approval by the museum. I think it's the same with works debuted by an orchestra.