A new generation of venues signals a shift from cultural institution to entertainment platform—one long anticipated, but still deeply contested.
For much of the 20th century, the American orchestra operated within a stable, if delicate, equilibrium. Ticket sales provided a portion of revenue. Philanthropy filled the gap. Endowments, where they existed, softened fluctuations. The model was never fully self-sustaining, but it was coherent. It worked well enough to support a flourishing artistic ecosystem.
It also depended on a distinction that now appears increasingly fragile: the idea that art and entertainment occupy separate domains, each with its own audience, economics, and purpose.
That distinction is beginning to erode.
Rising costs, uneven subscription demand, and increasing competition for philanthropic dollars have exposed a structural limitation: the traditional orchestra model does not generate sufficient earned revenue to support itself at scale. This is not a temporary imbalance. It is a feature of the system.
What is emerging in response is not a rejection of the nonprofit model, but a quiet reconfiguration of it—one that challenges long-held assumptions about what orchestras are, and how they sustain themselves.
The Turn Toward the Market
In recent years, several organizations have begun to expand beyond their traditional roles as presenters of classical music. They are entering the broader live entertainment economy, not as occasional participants, but as operators.
In Cincinnati, the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra established Music and Event Management, Inc. (MEMI), a subsidiary that books and manages multiple concert venues. These venues host touring acts, festivals, and commercial programming at a scale far beyond the orchestra’s core subscription base. The result is not merely increased activity, but a new revenue stream tied directly to market demand.
In Omaha, Omaha Performing Arts opened Steelhouse Omaha, a 3,000-seat venue designed to attract artists who would otherwise bypass the city. The logic is straightforward: if demand already exists, capture it.
Now, in Kansas City, the Kansas City Symphony is proposing a 4,000-plus seat venue intended for a wide range of programming, much of it outside the traditional symphonic repertoire. Unlike Omaha, this effort is tied directly to the orchestra itself, suggesting a more integrated financial strategy.
These are not isolated developments. They represent a pattern.
The Missing Middle
At the center of this shift is a simple market observation. Many cities lack venues in the 2,500 to 5,000 seat range. Smaller halls cannot accommodate the production or revenue needs of mid-level touring acts. Arenas are too large to be economically viable for many performers.
The result is a “missing middle” in the live music ecosystem.
Organizations that fill this gap gain access to a steady stream of touring content with established audiences. The programming risk is lower because demand has already been demonstrated elsewhere. The challenge is not to create interest, but to host it.
This is a fundamentally different posture from that of the traditional orchestra, which must cultivate demand for each program, often with limited elasticity.
From Institution to Platform
What distinguishes these developments is not simply the addition of new venues, but a change in how organizations conceive of themselves.
The orchestra is no longer only:
A producer of concerts
A steward of repertoire
A beneficiary of philanthropy
It is becoming:
A venue operator
A presenter across genres
A participant in the commercial entertainment market
In this model, the organization functions as a platform—one that connects artists, audiences, and infrastructure across multiple types of events.
This shift was anticipated in the work of Stanley E. Romanstein,Ph.D., who identified a core structural issue:
“At the root of the funding challenge… is this false divide that we have created between art and entertainment.”
For Romanstein, the distinction is less meaningful to audiences than institutions assume:
“Audiences… don’t generally differentiate between art and entertainment… They’re looking for a wonderful experience out.”
If that is the case, then the expansion into broader programming is not a departure from audience expectations, but an alignment with them.
The Resistance to the Model
These developments have not been universally welcomed. For some, they represent a dilution of artistic purpose, a shift away from the core mission of the orchestra toward something more commercial and less distinct.
This reaction is understandable. The boundary between art and entertainment has long served as a marker of institutional identity. To cross it can feel like a compromise.
Yet the economic reality is difficult to ignore. As Romanstein observed:
“We value entertainment highly… we’re willing to pay anything to be entertained.”
The asymmetry is clear. Audiences routinely support commercial entertainment at price levels that would be untenable for most nonprofit arts organizations. The question is not whether orchestras should become entertainment entities, but whether they can afford to ignore the systems that sustain them.
Romanstein’s conclusion is direct:
“The moment is right now to bring the walls down between art and entertainment and fuse the two worlds.”
The emerging venue strategies can be understood as early attempts to operationalize that idea.
When the Model Fails
Not every attempt to enter the broader entertainment market has succeeded. In Atlanta, the Woodruff Arts Center once owned the Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre, a large outdoor venue designed primarily for summer touring acts.
On its surface, the strategy appears similar: capture demand for popular entertainment and convert it into earned revenue. In practice, structural constraints limited its effectiveness. The venue’s seasonal nature restricted event volume. Competition within a saturated metropolitan market reduced its distinctiveness. Most critically, the operation was not fully integrated into the national touring and promoter ecosystem that drives consistent bookings.
Why Los Angeles Works and Atlanta Didn’t
The contrast between Los Angeles and Atlanta illustrates that success in the live entertainment model depends less on venue ownership than on market structure.The Los Angeles Philharmonic operates the Hollywood Bowl, one of the most successful outdoor venues in the world. Like Atlanta’s amphitheater, it is seasonal and oriented toward summer programming. Unlike Atlanta, it achieves consistently high utilization and substantial earned revenue.
The difference lies in context.
Los Angeles offers a vast metropolitan population, a global tourism base, and deep integration into the entertainment industry. The Bowl is not merely competing for touring acts—it is part of the ecosystem that defines them. Artists perform there because it is a destination.By contrast, the Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre operated in a saturated market with strong existing competition and less integration into national touring networks. Its seasonal nature further constrained the volume of events needed for financial stability.
The lesson is structural. Market size, tourism, brand identity, and promoter integration are not secondary considerations—they determine whether the model succeeds.
Where those conditions exist, as in Los Angeles, the model can thrive. Where they do not, as in Atlanta, the same strategy may struggle to produce meaningful financial support.Rather than functioning as a stable revenue engine, the amphitheater illustrates a central limitation of the model. Infrastructure alone is insufficient. Success depends on alignment with the systems that generate demand, the scale to sustain high utilization, and a clear financial connection to the core institution.
Constraints and Realities
The platform model is not without limitations.
Revenue from touring acts is substantial in aggregate but often constrained by costs: artist fees, production expenses, and promoter partnerships reduce margins. Profitability depends on volume. A single venue with inconsistent bookings will struggle to generate meaningful surplus.
Market size also matters. Not every city can support the level of activity required. The success of Cincinnati’s multi-venue system reflects both scale and density. Replicating that model in smaller or less connected markets may prove difficult.
Perhaps most importantly, these strategies do not eliminate the need for philanthropy. They supplement it. The nonprofit structure remains intact, even as its boundaries become more porous.
A Structural Adjustment, Not a Departure
It would be easy to interpret these developments as a departure from the traditional mission of the orchestra. In practice, they are better understood as an adaptation.
The core artistic function remains. What changes is the economic framework that supports it.
If the 20th-century model depended on a balance of tickets and donations, the emerging model adds a third element: participation in the broader entertainment economy. This does not resolve all financial challenges, but it redistributes them across a wider base of activity.
Conclusion: A Quiet Transformation
The transformation now underway is incremental rather than dramatic. There are no manifestos, no formal declarations of a new model. Instead, there are buildings, subsidiaries, and programming decisions that, taken together, suggest a different way forward.
The orchestra, long defined by its repertoire and traditions, is beginning to redefine itself through its infrastructure and revenue streams.
Not as a replacement for what it has been, but as an expansion of what it must become.
The underlying logic is not aesthetic, but structural. As Romanstein observed:
“If you can make the budget work, everything else is possible. If you can’t… nothing else is possible.”
That reality, more than any philosophical argument, is what is driving the change.
Go to www.AtlantaMusicCritic.com to see the full interview with Stanley Romanstein, Ph.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment