“If you’re going to embrace diversity, you will have to be ready to change – not just once but every day.” (John E McGrath, ACE, 2006, 140)
Introduction
There has been an ongoing fight for Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) for many years, and recent movements such as Black Lives Matter highlight the issues further. Many professions have made changes in line with these social movements and legal acts such as The Race Equality Scheme 2005, and arts organisations are no exception. EDI is important in arts organisations for numerous reasons. Firstly, it overcomes discrimination and celebrates diversity, which should be “cherished and preserved for the benefit of all” (Patrick Ebewo & Mzo Sirayi, 2009, 291). Secondly it brings “creativity and innovation”, enabling more effective responses to changes in the environment (Nadine Andrews, ACE, 2006, 63). Finally, it prevents the organisation from suffering both “commercially and in terms of brand reputation” (Sandra Kerr, ACE, 2006, 27), as implementing EDI strategies can extend audiences and attract patrons and donors who support diversity.
As such, many arts organisations are trying to reflect their support of EDI in their missions and almost all now have EDI statements. However, just stating they support EDI in writing doesn’t mean they actually put it into practice and one way of showing that they do is through their programming, for example through programming equality. Equality is defined as “the right of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment” (Cambridge Dictionary, no date). Programming equality therefore means ensuring different groups of people receive the same treatment within programmes of arts organisations. As such, programmes should not only include works by and for artists of all different races, genders, classes, disabilities and sexualities, but include them on equal grounds with the same opportunities.
In an ideal world, programming equality would already be present in all organisations. However, due to years of systemic discrimination and inequality, this is difficult to implement completely, so is significantly less ubiquitous than EDI statements, particularly in existing, already established organisations. Therefore, the question I would like to consider is: does the preservation of tradition and reputation in older music organisations necessarily conflict with modern obligations to programming?
There are different types of programming used in arts organisations; concert, event, community and education. All are vital to an organisation’s work, but this essay focuses on the concert programming of classical music orchestras. The main two case studies I will investigate are the London Mozart Players (LMP) and the London Chamber Orchestra (LCO). However, I will also compare these to other similar organisations, in particular the Chineke! Foundation.
I will begin by introducing LMP and LCO and look at their missions and environments. I will then analyse their concert programming, before considering why this may or may not reflect their missions. Finally, I will place this research in context with other organisations and consider what this means for programming equality.
Missions and environments
LMP and LCO are London based professional orchestras. “Founded by Anthony Bernard in 1921, the London Chamber Orchestra is the UK’s longest standing professional chamber orchestra” (LCO, Who we are, no date), with LMP founded 28 years later in 1949 by Harry Blech. Since both orchestras are based in London, the environments they function in are similar. London is the capital and biggest city of the UK, with a population over 9 million. It is significantly more diverse than other UK cities, with 200,000 international in-migrants in 2020 (London Datastore, 2021), and over 300 languages spoken (Robin James, 2019). This diversity has been prevalent for over a decade – the 2011 Census found that in London 69.7% of the population identified as white, compared to 86% across the rest of England and Wales (World Population Review, 2011).
In terms of audiences, the largest segment of ticket bookers in London are Metroculturals (48%), with 85% of all UK Metroculturals based in London (Audience Finder, 2021). The Metrocultural segment is defined as “prosperous, liberal, urbanites interested in a very wide cultural spectrum” (Audience Agency, no date). One third of Metroculturals attended a classical concert within the last 12 months, and 14% of music bookers across the UK were Metroculturals (third highest segment). The diversity of Metroculturals reflects the diversity of London, with only 50% identifying as “White English”, the lowest of any segment. Metroculturals, and the equivalent Arts Audiences Insight segment Urban Arts Eclectic, are open to new approaches and innovation with a “keen interest in other cultures and a thirst for new experiences” (Arts Council, 2011). As such, London audiences are attracted to orchestras striving to programme equality and promote new and exciting opportunities, exactly what LMP and LCO say they aim to do.
LMP was founded “to delight audiences with the works of Mozart and Haydn” but since then has reportedly adapted and “developed an outstanding reputation for adventurous, ambitious programming” (LMP, History, no date). More recently they developed their “Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion” statement, last edited in 2020, featuring declarations such as:
“We are acutely aware that Western classical music has historically been the domain of the affluent and most educated in society, as well as being predominantly white…we are conscious of and take very seriously the need to ensure that our work is reflective of the audiences that we seek to serve, cutting across the intersections of race, gender, wealth and education.”
(LMP, Our Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion, no date)
The statement also covers the prioritisation of diversifying partnerships and the recruitment and selection of musicians and staff, and lays out aims of appointing a lead diversity trustee. This is reflected by their partnership with Black Lives in Music (BLIM), a company that strives to “dismantle structural racism…for Black people to be able to work successfully in the UK music industry without being the subject of discrimination” (BLIM, About Us, no date).
LMP also show their commitment to equality through community and learning programmes, with their project Spotlight On… working with four young, diverse soloists (Sheku Kanneh-Mason, Isata Kanneh-Mason, Jess Gillam and Leia Zhu) to produce a series of free-to-access films for 5–18-year-olds studying primary and secondary school music. These videos, created and presented by conductor Timothy Henty, form part of LMP’s challenge to reach 100,000 children and young people nationwide in 2021 (LMP, News, no date).
Their stated attitude to concert programming is no different:
“We want to present music that is relevant to our audiences and draws on the rich cultural exchanges we have established by working with international artists and touring, both in the UK and abroad. Over the next 18 months, our programming will continue to feature soloists and guest artists from diverse backgrounds and will be actively extending our repertoire to include compositions by black classical composers and newly commissioned pieces from artists of other backgrounds.”
(LMP, Our Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion, no date)
Therefore, LMP state a clear mission towards EDI throughout their programmes, learning projects, and recruitment of staff and musicians. They aim to use their “reputation for adventurous, ambitious programming” to further this ambition and extend beyond their initial mission of “delight[ing] audiences with the works of Mozart and Haydn” (LMP, History, no date).
LCO similarly exhibit a clear mission of EDI:
“LCO has…become one of the UK’s most compelling and inclusive musical organisations…LCO are committed to pursuing fresh works and new compositions by regularly commissioning and performing UK premieres by living composers.”
(LCO, Who we are, no date)
LCO don’t have as significant partnerships as LMP does, such as BLIM, or a specific EDI statement, but show commitment to their EDI mission in other ways. Similar to LMP, LCO has well-established learning opportunities. One project, Music Junction, brings together “mentees, pupils who have had very limited or no access to classical music; mentors, pupils who have been learning an instrument; and LCO musicians.” (LCO, Learning, no date). These groups meet each year for flashmobs, creative workshops and instrumental learning, and to perform a piece written especially for them alongside LCO in concert.
LCO have also shown their commitment to EDI by recently removing dress codes for all performances, and through staffing; for example by appointing Freya Waley-Cohen, a young female musician, as composer in residence, and Jocelyn Lightfoot as Managing Director, who states “We [along with owner Martin Childs] are both passionate about promoting classical music in-line with wider society” (LCO, News, no date). Hattie Rayfield-Williams, who runs outreach programmes, is also working to ensure there are “no barriers” preventing composers from applying to the orchestra’s emerging composer development scheme, LCO New (LCO, News, no date).
Both LCO and LMP have clear goals concerning EDI, with promises to incorporate it in learning, staffing and concerts. However, are they able to fulfil these promises?
Programming analysis
Using information from the orchestras’ websites and Facebook events, I have compiled programme content for all of LCO and LMP’s 2020 and 2021 concerts, identifying each composer who had one or more work performed by the orchestras. I then profiled each composer in accordance with diversity monitoring categories used by Carey et al., 2020: Gender, Ethnicity, Class, Disability/Long Term Health Condition (LTHC) and Qualifications (data in Appendix 1).
Genders were categorised as Male, Female, or Non-binary, while categories for Qualifications were (has or is studying for) University qualification, Conservatory, Multiple degrees, or No higher education. I defined Disability/LTHC as a health condition or disability that lasted for more than 6 months during a composer’s learning and working life. For Class I used the same requirements as Carey (2020). Privileged was defined as composers with at least one parent employed in a higher or lower managerial, administrative or professional occupation. Intermediate meant parents in intermediate, lower supervisory and technical occupations, or self-employed. Working-class meant parents employed in routine or semi-routine occupations, or long-term unemployed. When this information was unavailable I used education, district, and the composer’s own profession to determine class. Finally, ethnicity was split into 5 categories, as per Gov.uk’s List of ethnic groups (no date): White; Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups; Asian or Asian British; Black, African, Caribbean or Black British; Other ethnic group. All these criteria could be improved, (for example, the categorisation of ethnicity does not satisfactorily reflect the full diversity of ethnic backgrounds), however I failed to find any more suitable guidance from an official source. Composers could also be classified based on number of appearances over a season to give a more accurate measure of representation, but this method would under-emphasise diversity as it fails to report the number of unique composers.
Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate my findings.
Despite promises to feature compositions by “Black classical composers and newly commissioned pieces from artists of other backgrounds” (LMP, Our Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion, no date), LMP are severely lacking in any works by composers who are not White. They also fall significantly short in programming work by female, working-class and disabled composers. However, programming zero works by Black composers in the past two years seems especially inadequate since they are a partner of BLIM.
LCO, who are not partners of BLIM, also fall short in some areas, such as working-class and ethnically diverse composers. However, 3.1% of composers featured were Black, African, Caribbean and Black British, more than one of BLIM’s own partners. LCO also programme 17% more women than LMP, and 5.8% more composers with a disability/LTHC.
I was interested in not only what LCO and LMP programmed, but who. I used the same criteria to research soloists and conductors who performed with the orchestras over 2020-2021. Figures 3-6 show this research.
In fairness to LMP, their programming of soloists does show more diversity than that of composers, which is just as well since they promise to “feature soloists…from diverse backgrounds” (LMP, Our Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion, no date). However, they do lack any soloists from a working-class background or with a disability/LTHC. Nevertheless, 31.6% female soloists is a vast improvement on the 1.8% of female composers, albeit only half the 62.5% of female soloists programmed by LCO. However, LCO featured 9.6% more White soloists than LMP and similarly failed to programme any soloists from a working-class background or with a disability/LTHC.
Representation of EDI in LCO’s conductors is also variable. For example, all were white, able, highly educated and from privileged or intermediate backgrounds. Notably though, 50% of their conductors were female, a figure unrivalled by LMP’s 10%. LMP’s conductors are also 100% privileged, 90% White, 100% able and 90% highly educated. These figures definitely do not reflect the diversity and inclusion at the heart of their mission.
Discussion
So, this poses the question, why is LMP unable to fulfil their mission towards EDI through their concert programming? Returning to McGrath’s quote at the start it feels as though LMP may be able to change once, for example they featured one female composer, Georgia Barnes, for one piece (Let the Carols Ring) at one concert (Christmas Classics) (LMP, What’s On, no date), but have failed to regularly embrace diversity over the last two years. There could be multiple reasons for this. Maddy Morton claims that “successful organisations model internally what they wish to express externally” (ACE, 2006, 131). It is hard to prove this is the case for LMP without first-hand experience, but there are a few signs that it could be. For example, they aim to appoint a lead diversity trustee but there is no evidence they have done this yet.
Another possibility is that LMP already think they have the identity they want. Rita Koltasz conducted a study with 126 theatres that suggested a resistance to change as organisations believe they’re seen by others in certain ways so act and feel in ways that mirror these outside perceptions (ACE, 2006, 71). Perhaps LMP they think they already are programming equality enough through their community and learning programmes so have less obligation to do so in concerts too.
Or perhaps they’re still fulfilling their image of London Mozart Players and choosing “to mobilise the concept of ‘heritage’, to hang on to things in the act of changing them” (Gabrial Gbadamosi, ACE, 2006, 210). William Byrnes (2014, 19) also suggests that some perceive arts organisations as “more comfortable with the past or maintaining status quo”. LMP may still be more comfortable with remaining close to their roots of performing works by Mozart and Haydn, or feel a duty to existing customers, who began their relationship with the orchestra before their EDI-focussed mission, to programme well-reputed works that these customers expect and enjoy. Satisfying existing customers can also help with profitability, thus creating another reason for failing to fully programme equality: economic pressures.
But is it possible for organisations with heritage and established customers to move on from tradition? I believe LCO is proving that it is possible, and that preservation of tradition and reputation in older music organisations does not necessarily conflict with programming equality. LCO, the oldest chamber orchestra in the UK (LCO, Who we are, no date), still programmes equality more effectively than LMP. It particularly strives for gender equality, featuring equal male and female conductors, 62.5% female soloists and 18.8% female composers. Christopher Warren-Green (a privileged, white, male) is their principal conductor, but their commitment to programming gender equality is furthered through their female composer in residence, Waley-Cohen.
In concerts, LCO tend to combine lesser-known works with older well-reputed ones. Their 26th October 2021 concert featured Saffron by Waley-Cohen alongside Beethoven’s Symphony No. 3 ‘Eroica’, while their 30th November 2021 concert featured Gabriel Prokofiev’s innovative Concerto for Turntables and Orchestra, his grandfather Sergey Prokofiev’s Symphony No. 1 ‘Classical’ and Errollyn Wallen’s Mighty River and Horseplay, all following a common theme of “revolutions and freedoms” (LCO, What’s On, no date). Their concerts therefore have enough well-known works to sell to existing customers but also enough new, innovative works to promote EDI, keep open-minded Metrocultural audiences interested and introduce audiences to musicians that deserve more recognition.
As such, LCO proves that preservation of tradition and reputation in older music organisations does not necessarily conflict with programming equality. However, there is still a limit to the extent of their EDI programming. This may be due to their commitments to existing identities and customers, as well as modern audiences and obligations to programming equality. After all, they were not founded specifically to programme equality, they had to introduce it into existing missions. Consequently, this poses the question: is programming equality easier in organisations specifically designed for that purpose, without older traditions and reputations to contend with?
One such organisation designed to promote EDI is the Chineke! Foundation, also based in London. Chineke! was founded in 2015 by double-bassist Chi-chi Nwanoku OBE, who states “the orchestra was created to show that there are more than just a few people of colour in classical music. Within our 62 musicians, there are 31 nationalities represented” (Stephania Davis, 2017). She also says this about the project:
“My aim is to create a space where Black and ethnically diverse musicians can walk on stage and know that they belong, in every sense of the word. If even one Black and ethnically diverse child feels that their colour is getting in the way of their musical ambitions, then I hope to inspire them, give them a platform, and show them that music, of whatever kind, is for all people.”
(Chineke!, About, no date)
Their mission strongly reflects Nwanoku’s motivations:
“Chineke!’s motto is: ‘Championing change and celebrating diversity in classical music’. The organisation aims to be a catalyst for change, realising existing diversity targets within the industry by increasing the representation of Black and ethnically diverse musicians in British and European orchestras.”
(Chineke!, About, no date)
Chineke! fulfils these aims in numerous ways. For example, the Chineke! Orchestra act as mentors, teachers and role models to the 11–22-year-olds in the Chineke! Junior Orchestra (Chineke!, Orchestras, no date). Both orchestras are made up of Black and ethnically diverse players. Chineke! are also proposing the formation of “a grant giving alliance to fund auditions for ethnically diverse musicians for orchestras in the UK and Europe” (Chineke!, Orchestras, no date). These projects prove they are passionate about the need to create a “grass-roots, musician-backed campaign to showcase talent, smooth the path to our stages, and support ensembles and orchestras in finally driving change” (Chineke!, Orchestras, no date). However, does their concert programming reflect these ambitions? Based on the same analysis criteria as for LCO and LMP, figures 7-9 show my findings.
Chineke!’s programming is significantly more diverse than that of LMP and LCO. They programme more composers from working-class and more ethnically diverse backgrounds. The soloists they work with are also from diverse backgrounds with only 33.3% identifying as white and 28.6% privileged. Their conductors further reflect their mission with 62.5% from an intermediate background and incredibly none identifying as white! The areas Chineke! neglect in terms of EDI are programming musicians with a disability/LTHC and programming women, particularly as conductors, with only one out of eight a woman. This may be because they place a specific emphasis on “increasing the representation of Black and ethnically diverse musicians” (Chineke!, About, no date). After all, “too much diversity and the organisation gets too fragmented and doesn’t have a distinct coherent identity” (Nadine Andrews, ACE, 62).
Additionally, there are other organisations which similarly champion specific areas of diversity. For example, Her Ensemble is the UK’s first women and non-binary orchestra, founded by Ellie Consta after she discovered just 3.6% of classical music pieces performed worldwide in 2019 were written by women (Her Ensemble, About, no date). There are also orchestras focused on making music accessible for disabled children. These include Open Up Music which helps schools “set up accessible orchestras” and runs the world’s first disabled-led national youth orchestra (Open Up Music, Welcome, no date), and Able Orchestra which aims to “create a totally inclusive ensemble of disabled and non-disabled musicians” (Orchestras Live, Able Orchestra, no date).
All the orchestras mentioned demonstrate various ways of programming equality and the decisions behind it, which can be characterised by the four models of strategic decision making (Cray et al, 2007, 303). They include Rational (stable process), Political (coalitions with interested parties), Incremental (small steps that gradually increase commitment to course) and Garbage Can (takes advantage of existing solutions). LMP fits well with the Rational and Political models since it remains fairly stable but negotiates with partners such as BLIM. Contrastingly, LCO uses the Incremental strategy by gradually introducing diverse musicians and increasing commitment to EDI.
However, both LMP and LCO match the Affirmative remedy for social injustice. Fraser (1995) outlines two options: Affirmative (correct inequitable outcomes without altering structural elements that created the inequity) and Transformative (dismantling systems of inequity to fix injustice at the root) (Brea Heidelberg, 2019, 393). LMP and LCO only implement EDI by fitting it into their existing processes, whereas Chineke!, for example, commits to EDI at its foundation and throughout the whole organisation.
These are significantly reductional assessments as all organisations tend to combine strategies, but it does highlight the different approaches the orchestras take. Analysis of LMP suggests it is harder for older organisations to reflect updated missions in their concert programming, due to difficulties changing ingrained processes. LCO also has established traditions but manages to introduce EDI-conscious programming more successfully, albeit gradually. Contrastingly, Chineke! reflect their mission through programming more easily since it has always been a specifically EDI focussed organisation. This suggests two methods are useful to programming equality: introducing EDI programming gradually alongside standard repertoire, and starting new or rebranded organisations specifically dedicated to EDI. The methods followed will depend on the individual organisation and their resources, such as funding, artistic directors, staff and audience.
All methods have their own strengths and weaknesses but some, or rather one, is more effective than others. LCO strive for EDI, and are successful in some cases, such as female musicians, but not in others. LMP also fails to make a difference, suggesting older organisations are inconsistent in championing change and diversity. To make a significant difference to EDI in music not just once but every day as stipulated by McGrath, new organisations like Chineke!, created specifically with an EDI aim and no tradition to contend with, are needed.
Conclusion
In agreement with McGrath, I believe one of the most important requirements of programming equality is the ability to do it continuously. LMP and LCO both articulate their commitment to EDI in their missions but fail to reflect it consistently in their concert programming. LCO achieve equality in some areas, such as conductors’ genders, but not in others, with over 90% of their conductors, composers and soloists identifying as white. This may be due to existing traditions, reputations and audiences. This idea is further supported by Chineke!, an organisation founded with EDI as its foundation, which is able to embrace diversity habitually.
This essay only covers a small section of potential research on programming equality. I investigated class, gender, ethnicity, disability/LTHC and qualifications, the same categories as Carey (2020). However, it is also worth considering age, sexuality, faith and geography, such as the UK’s north/south divide. It is also important to research how other arts organisations programme equality, and if there is an effective way for older organisations to move forward from tradition or use it positively to help them programme equality.
In conclusion, though preserving tradition and modern obligations to programming equality don’t have to conflict, the extent to which older organisations programme equality is still limited since that is not their main focus. Fully EDI-conscious programmes are only prevalent in organisations like Chineke! who have always had a specific EDI mission. However, there is still no innate conflict so if organisations like LCO continue to integrate EDI in their programmes they may reach more equal programming eventually, but only time will tell how long that will take.
Comments