No, we didn't particularly get into the economics of being able to do some of the things we've been talking about. And yes, the pressure is on to come up with solutions that work. And economic pressure can spur organizations to do things they don't necessarily want to do.

indeed, I think that a lot of the tumult in the cultural sector these days is the result of tradtional economic balances being out of whack. A few years ago it may have made sense to pay TV stars a million dollars a show. Not now. A few years ago young pop stars knew the path to making it rich (not that many of them made it, but at least the pathways were clear). A few years ago it made sense for arts organizations to build their business model on the season subscription. No longer. In part what's changed, I think, is that the costs have shifted. Many things that used to be very expensive to do (like making movies or recordings) are now relatively cheap. Other things - labor costs, for example, have gone up, not down.

While a theatre can grow or shrink the size of productions it offers, an orchestra in our current model is locked into certain costs. Orchestras and ballet companies are the most labor intensive arts, so it's difficult for them to adapt quickly. But it's going to happen, and I believe positive things will come from having to adapt; it will force us to shed some of the stodgy, anti-artistic behaviors that have grown up and no longer serve us.

I want to thank everyone who participated in this discussion. It's these kinds of thoughtful debates among people who care that ensure things will get better.