Classical music organizations spend an inordinate amount of time and money these days trying to attract new audiences when there is a great untapped pool of listeners already out there for the taking. I speak of those who would like to go to a concert or concerts but can’t afford to, listeners who are already interested in the art form, who don’t have to be sold on it, but who just don’t have the dough to spend on tickets, cheap, expensive or otherwise. These listeners aren’t necessarily poor or unemployed; I myself — ostensibly in the middle class — couldn’t afford to go to the concerts I attend were it not for the free passes I receive as a reviewer.
When I was a music student at USC, I signed up for this class called “Performance Today” or some such. The way it worked was like this. At USC if you were enrolled in 14 units of classes, you got an extra three units free. Performance Today was a three-unit class that never met. It was a box office window, actually, and if you were signed up for this class you went to the window and got “free” tickets to classical music events. I was able to see concerts in this way that I never would have been able to manage otherwise, including many performances by the Los Angeles Philharmonic conducted by none other than Carlo Maria Giulini.
Now, I’m no advocate of free tickets. I think that “free” isn’t valued by ticketholders and that, with a gratis stub in hand, they’re just as likely not to show up as go. But “Performance Today” wasn’t quite free, really. It was a bonus for an expenditure already made; also, the number of tickets you could get was limited. So, you ended up getting tickets only to concerts you actually wanted to see. What’s more, the program must have been funded in some way (the education arm of the L.A. Phil? A foundation grant to USC?), so that no one, I wager, was losing money on the proposition.
What’s more, a student could get $5 rush tickets to most, if not all, concerts, at least downtown at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion. Most of the ones I bought seemed to have been tickets turned in by subscribers, because the seats were first class. Again, this was probably a program that was funded in some way. Perhaps subscribers turned in their tickets for tax deductions rather than refunds; in that way the performing group would actually make $5 more on the ticket rather than lose anything.
My point is that both of these initiatives were targeted towards someone — me — who was already interested in classical music. Not some fictional Joe Schmo who watches cable TV every night who, if we could only figure out a way to market to him, would jump in his car to hear a Mahler symphony. I wanted to go to concerts so badly that I would sneak in when I couldn’t get or afford a ticket. I’d check out the time the concert started and figure when intermission would be. I’d arrive (after finding street parking) dressed as well as I could muster, with a rolled-up program from the last concert in my hand, and join the concert attendees milling about outside smoking and talking. Then I’d simply stroll on in for the second half, right past ushers who never said a thing.
Rush tickets are still available nowadays (though I see a $20 price tag most often). But much much more could be done on this front, with a little imagination. And not just for students. Foundation money, instead of underwriting some hopeless and lame marketing program or education initiative, could be used to support $10 single tickets for special non-subscription concerts, for instance. Listeners could sign up for “Performance Today” type programs at their workplaces. Etc. It might not be as glamorous as those glossy season brochures offering “Romantic Nights” at the symphony, or radio spots or TV ads, but it would put butts in seats, and they’d be butts with interested ears.
Moral: Sell your product to thirsty horses.
Classical Life 
My question: which educational initiatives (bringing classical music to children and other novices) are “hopeless and lame”? My humble opinion: some are better than others but even the most modest of them are better than none. My suggestion: quenching horses’ existing thirst is fine and commendable, but those product sellers who spend their resources primarily on making as many colts and fillies as possible aware that they are thirsty may be particularly farsighted and wise.
In general, I would say any initiative where orchestras play music “at” children are less valuable than initiatives that put instruments into a child’s hands and gives him or her an opportunity to play and perform. If you want to introduce kids to baseball, the best way is to give them a bat and ball; you don’t take them to a baseball game. Kids want to do; not watch.
Sneaking in after intermission: brilliant!
Alternatively, you can always buy a cheap instrument case or music score, dress in concert attire and go backstage to listen from there! Nobody questions anyone with an instrument
Perhaps letting them do is in fact better than letting them watch (hurray for The Harmony Project as well as LA Phil’s YOLA and others of that sort), though it does not have to be an either-or proposition. Anyway, as i said, some are better than others.
However: a) for most people of all ages, watching comes before doing because they have to see something in order to become aware of it before they know that that is what they happen to like and therefore want to do; b) if you think that taking kids to concerts is always “hopeless and lame”, you must have simply been unlucky and not seen many good children programs that i have witnessed where i looked into kids’ eyes and saw how excited and fascinated they were while their interest in classical music was growing from virtually non-existent into something that was quite powerful and a joy to behold.
In the absence of the one, the other isn’t especially effective. Most orchestras in this country can only afford to play at kids.
That said, I think children should have music in schools. It shouldn’t be an orchestra’s responsibility to teach local children music.
I’ve taken my son to concerts since he was about 3 or 4, mostly to regular adult concerts, though.
Still, my point was that orchestras would do well to find ways to invest in listeners and not turn themselves into educational institutions. But yes, it’s not an either-or proposition. Just a matter of emphasis, I guess.
I should add … most of the adults I know who go to concerts regularly played an instrument when they were young. The key is participation in music, not listening to concerts when young.
In an ideal world (according to us), schools should teach classical music. But in the one we live in, they do not. Orchestras in this real world can’t possibly become educational institutions no matter how hard they try, so there is no need to worry about that. But if those that have the resources manage to play good concerts for children occasionally, it can’t produce anything but positive results, however modest. By the way, i personally know plenty of adults who love going to classical music concerts, even though they have never played a single note on any instrument in their lives. They may have been singing in the shower every day for decades, but i am not sure about that. Of course, there is no doubt that participating in music is a wonderful thing to be able to do at any age. You seem to be presenting a choice between investing in the audience of today versus the audience of tomorrow. In my opinion, both are important, but i don’t see anything wrong in making tomorrow a priority when the financial situation allows it.