1. Who Are Orchestras For?
Rethinking legitimacy, legacy and leadership in Australia's cultural institutions
Orchestras once served to uplift the public. Today, they must convince the public they still matter.
Few cultural institutions in Australia have occupied a more symbolically charged place in our national imagination than the symphony orchestra. Once seen as emblems of refinement, civic progress and cultural legitimacy, orchestras were long considered integral to Australia's development as a modern cultural nation. Throughout the early and mid-twentieth century, they were embedded within state and federal efforts to elevate public taste, consolidate national identity, and emulate European models of artistic excellence.
Yet in recent decades, these institutions have found themselves navigating an increasingly complex and contested cultural terrain—one defined less by prestige and more by pluralism, accountability, and evolving expectations of public value.
This evolution raises a question that appears simple but proves remarkably layered: Who are orchestras for?
The answer has never been static. It has shifted across five distinct eras of Australia's cultural development, each with its own logic of legitimacy and purpose. By examining this evolution, we can better understand not only the specific challenges facing orchestras today, but the broader tensions reshaping all cultural institutions in our fractured, pluralistic age.
From Cultural Paternalism to Public Value: Five Eras of Orchestral Development
My research into the evolution of Australia's orchestral institutions has identified five distinct phases that reflect broader shifts in cultural policy and social expectations:
Phase 1: Cultural Paternalism (1932-1951)
Phase 2: Public Goods (1944-1970)
Phase 3: Towards Divestment (1970-1996)
Phase 4: Corporatisation and Divestment (1996-1999)
Phase 5: Public Value (2000-present)
Each of these phases has left its imprint on how orchestras understand their purpose, how they are governed, and who they see themselves as serving.
1. Cultural Paternalism (1932-1951)
The first era began with the establishment of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) in 1932. Under the leadership of cultural nationalists like Sir Charles Moses, the ABC established a network of state-based symphony orchestras with a dual mandate: to provide high-quality music for radio programming and to serve as cultural anchors within their respective cities.
This model positioned orchestras as instruments of cultural policy, designed to elevate public taste through exposure to European masterworks. They were for the public, but not of the public—more concerned with what audiences should hear than with what they might want to hear.
2. Public Goods (1944-1970)
The second era positioned orchestras within a Keynesian framework that treated them as essential public goods—cultural resources whose benefits were assumed to be non-rivalrous, non-excludable, and intrinsically valuable.
The formation of the Australian Council for the Arts in 1967 formalised this logic, treating orchestras not as luxury commodities but as essential services that warranted protection and public investment regardless of market demand.
Orchestras were now, at least in theory, for "the people"—though "the people" were still imagined as culturally homogeneous and best served by a diet of European masterworks.
3. Towards Divestment (1970-1996)
The third phase saw orchestras navigating economic rationalism as the dominant policy framework. Government-commissioned reports—including the Dix Report (1981) and the Tribe Report (1984)—identified declining audience numbers, weak community engagement, and an institutional disconnect from local cultural landscapes.
In this period, orchestras were increasingly expected to act as cultural businesses rather than public services—to develop entrepreneurial acumen, pursue broader audiences, and justify their funding in economic terms.
The answer to "who are orchestras for?" shifted from a general public assumed to benefit from exposure to high culture, to a more specifically defined set of consumers who actively chose to engage with orchestral music.
4. Corporatisation and Divestment (1996-1999)
The fourth era, though brief, brought decisive structural reform. Under the Keating Government's landmark Creative Nation policy (1994), orchestras were finally divested from the ABC and re-established as independent not-for-profit entities with their own boards, management structures, and financial responsibilities.
This transition introduced new imperatives: strategic planning, market responsiveness, and stakeholder engagement. Yet this process was driven primarily by economic imperatives, rather than a coherent vision of what orchestras were for in a changing cultural environment.
During this phase, orchestras were increasingly for their customers—the ticket-buyers, subscribers, and donors who directly funded their operation.
5. Public Value (2000-present)
The fifth and current era has reframed orchestras within a public value paradigm. Australia's orchestras now operate within a complex environment where they must justify their public funding by demonstrating measurable contributions to society—while continuing to uphold artistic excellence and maintain financial sustainability.
For orchestras, the implications have been far-reaching. Institutions that had long positioned themselves as custodians of elite heritage are now expected to engage new and broader publics, build meaningful community partnerships, and develop educational and outreach programs that address identified social needs.
In theory, orchestras are now for everyone—for communities, for schools, for regions, for diverse demographics long excluded from orchestral culture. Yet in practice, tensions persist between artistic tradition and contemporary relevance.
The Unresolved Present: A Leadership Challenge
This brings us to the current moment—one defined by unresolved tension between competing visions of orchestral purpose. Should orchestras prioritise artistic excellence or community relevance? Traditional audiences or new ones? European heritage or Australian innovation? Museum-like preservation or forward-looking transformation?
My research with Australian orchestras reveals that these are not merely strategic questions but leadership dilemmas. Unlike earlier eras where purpose was imposed from above, today's orchestras must develop their own sense of direction through dialogue with diverse stakeholders.
One state orchestra leader put it plainly in interview: "If you think cultural leadership is just about great music, then I think you're probably a passenger on the decline of orchestras worldwide."
Inside many orchestras, there is no unified answer to the question of purpose. Musicians may see the orchestra as a tightly trained ensemble whose job is to perform at the highest standard. Marketing teams may view it as a brand needing visibility. Education staff may champion accessibility and outreach. Executives may try to bridge these logics through strategic plans and cultural partnerships.
This misalignment is more than bureaucratic tension—it's existential. As one artistic leader offered in a strikingly clear analogy: "It would be like Arnott's saying, 'We make biscuits,' and the factory is how we make the biscuits."
The Harmonising Purpose Framework
My research with Australian orchestras led me to develop the Harmonising Purpose framework—a model of cultural leadership that responds directly to the complex challenges facing orchestras in the public value era.
This framework identifies three interdependent attributes that enable effective cultural leadership in the orchestral context:
1. Harmonising Purpose
The first attribute centres on aligning the diverse internal understandings of an orchestra's role and objectives. Cultural leadership involves facilitating alignment among competing perspectives to produce a coherent and shared sense of direction that can underpin strategy and guide decision-making.
2. Authentic Social Participation
The second attribute addresses how orchestras engage with their wider social environment. Authentic social participation involves intentional, sustained involvement in the cultural and civic life of the community. It requires orchestras to adapt their identity and programming in response to the communities they serve.
3. Stakeholder Value Creation
The third attribute focuses on how orchestras generate impact across a complex ecosystem of stakeholders. Cultural leadership in this domain involves not only managing expectations but actively shaping and communicating value propositions tailored to different stakeholders.
These three attributes are not discrete competencies but overlapping orientations that orchestras must continually negotiate as they balance artistic integrity, public relevance, and organisational sustainability.
Throughout this series, I'll explore each of these dimensions in depth, examining how orchestras can navigate the tension between inherited purpose and contemporary relevance.
From Excellence to Engagement: A Path Forward
So, who are orchestras for in 2025? The honest answer is that they're still figuring it out—navigating between tradition and transformation, between symbolic authority and public relevance, between artistic integrity and social responsibility.
What is clear is that the old models no longer suffice. The paternalism of the ABC era, the narrow market focus of the corporate period, even the well-intentioned outreach of early public value frameworks—none fully captures the complexity of what orchestras must become.
This doesn't mean abandoning artistic standards or capitulating to market pressures. As one senior musician put it: "I'm never going to stop striving for excellence, and I'm never going to shy away from saying that's what I strive for. But we need to be willing to ask what else we're here for."
The orchestras that thrive in this environment are those that view public value not as an imposition but as an opportunity—a chance to deepen their impact and broaden their relevance while remaining true to their artistic core.
The Question of Legitimacy
At its core, the challenge facing orchestras today is one of legitimacy, not merely financial or administrative, but cultural and social. In a diverse, rapidly changing Australia, orchestras can no longer assume their place in the cultural hierarchy. They must earn it through relevance, connection, and perceived value.
Cultural leadership means being honest about this. It means asking not just "who do we serve," but "who do we routinely exclude?" And it means recognising that legitimacy cannot be claimed—it must be earned, and re-earned, through meaningful engagement.
The question "Who are orchestras for?" is incomplete without another: "Who is asking?" The answer may depend on your perspective.
Looking Ahead: The Power of Cultural Design
In future instalments of this series, I'll explore how each of the five historical phases has shaped contemporary orchestral practice, beginning with a deep dive into the ABC's orchestral mission in the 1930s-50s. This foundational period established key patterns in how orchestras were positioned in Australian society—patterns that continue to influence their operations today.
We'll examine how cultural paternalism became a deliberate national project, broadcast into homes across the country. We'll meet the visionaries like Charles Moses and William James Cleary who believed orchestras could transform Australia from cultural backwater to sophisticated nation. And we'll consider a provocative question: What if your local orchestra was never really local—but part of a national dream broadcast by design?
This historical understanding isn't merely academic—it's essential for navigating the leadership challenges orchestras face today. By recognising the ideological foundations of these institutions, we can better understand the inherited assumptions that both enable and constrain their evolution.
Join me next time as we explore how classical music became a national project, and what that means for orchestras seeking to reimagine their purpose in contemporary Australia.
Next in The Orchestra Papers: Cultural Paternalism and the ABC: Nation-Building by Broadcast
If you’re interested in these ideas, you might enjoy my podcast, Decoding Cultural Leadership, presented in partnership with Limelight. Each episode features in-depth conversations with leading thinkers, policy-makers, and arts leaders exploring what cultural leadership means in the 21st century—from ethics and public value to stakeholder engagement and the role of the arts in social change.
Listen wherever you get your podcasts, or at samuelcairnduff.com/podcast