Attracting Visitors

In responding to Matt Smith's SF Weekly column concerned with whether or not, faced with a $90 million budget deficit, the city should continue to support the fine arts with a specific allocation of $2.6 million, I tried to offer an admittedly naive analysis of benefits and costs for San Francisco residents. This approach overlooked what may be a key facet of the overall story, which is that the support of the fine arts benefits not only the city's residents but also its visitors. This raises a possibly interesting contrast between the San Francisco Opera and the San Francisco Symphony. Much of the Symphony's "world class" reputation comes from its touring schedule, particularly when the tour takes it to cities like New York and London, since those are the cities with some of the most knowledgeable music critics and the most scrupulous audiences. On the other hand the Opera has a reputation for attracting people to visit San Francisco. This is most evident when Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen is staged as a cycle of all four of its operas, since Wagner brings out a passion among his devotees that motives them to travel anywhere to get a good fix. However, San Francisco Opera has also attracted visitors for many of its new productions. Olivier Messiaen's Saint François d'Assise may not have attracted as many visitors out of raw Wagnerian passion; but I suspect it still drew quite a few out of curiosity, particularly those who wondered if such an opportunity would ever arise again in the near future. Similarly, both John Adams and Philip Glass have the sorts of reputations that motivate contemporary opera lovers to come to world premieres of their works, such as Doctor Atomic and Appomattox. Indeed, Doctor Atomic now has a second production at the Metropolitan Opera, which the Met decided was important enough to "export" through HD broadcasting. From this point of view, it is interesting to note the extent to which the Met uses these broadcasts to highlight the "opera house experience," applying it as a draw to attract those who enjoyed the broadcast to New York.

Under Michael Tilson Thomas the San Francisco Symphony has certainly established a similar potential for attracting visitors. This has been particularly evident with his attention to the symphonies of Gustav Mahler, which led me to wonder whether or not Valery Gergiev's decision, as principle conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra, to conduct the complete cycle of the symphonies of Gustav Mahler during the 2007–2008 season was motivated, at least in part, as a strategy to draw visitors to London. Before he came to San Francisco, Thomas had already established a reputation as a conductor of Charles Ives in cities such as Chicago and Amsterdam; and, personally, I wish he would do more Ives here. There may not be as many Ives fanatics will to travel the sorts of distances that Wagner fanatics do; but I suspect the prospect of an "Ives festival" in San Francisco could have more tourist attraction than might be assumed at first.

The Symphony, of course, has the advantage of recordings that can "capture" a performance experience. However, as the Met keeps trying to remind us, even with the fidelity of HD images, there is no substitute for "being there;" and this is as true of Davies Symphony Hall as it is of the War Memorial Opera House. Perhaps one way to deal with questions of budget priorities would be to address the role of the Symphony as a "tourist magnet" as a point of departure for new funding strategies. This, of course, is free advice, which means that it is probably worth every penny of its price!