As a former BSO musician, watching the wholly unnecessary internal strife has been distressing. One hopes that the pressure being exerted from many corners, not the least yours, will lead to the institutional change that so many of us want.
Thanks for your comment. I understand the distress. Professional musicians work incredibly hard to perform at a high level, and the front office treats the orchestra like a herd of cattle.
This front office, perhaps. Not all. There's always a dynamic tension between the artistic side and business side of a symphony orchestra. When things are working well, there's a feeling of mutual respect and understanding. But in the current situation, that productive synergy has been decimated.
Thanks, Mr. Dinsmore. You deserve a Pulitzer for your investigative reporting, which, as you note, arts journalists from major publications have failed to do. You are a one-man Woodward and Bernstein. You have provided the documented information that the hitherto gutless BSO Trustees have chosen to ignore.
The statement Smith makes about the rift with Nelsons is especially pertinent. Insider backstage knowledge at the BSO is that for a complete year leading up to this debacle, Nelson's team was constantly asking Smith for information about the future vision and the "strategic plan". Smith would not answer. It was not possible for Nelsons to " not support the future vision" because he didn't know what it was. The only conversations that took place, were about whether there should be Pops concerts as part of the opening Gala week for the beginning of the the fall BSO Classical season. Nelsons wanted that week to feature the Symphony Orchestra not the Pops. After all it was supposed to be celebrating the opening of the classical season. Nelsons was supposedly able to secure his wishes for this coming fall 2026 but who knows what will happen in following years.
When a portion of the fiduciary board voted to fire Nelsons, they were told they needed to save the " integrity of the the BSO".
It is apparent that the exact opposite is occurring. Reading this article, one realises that on an Artistic level, a Fiduciary level, and an a Human level, Smith is damaging the "integrity" of the Boston Symphony Orchestra.
I think that Smith invented that Nelsons quote. It was a reckless thing to do, because he put himself and the BSO in legal jeopardy.
Others have told me the same thing -- neither Nelsons nor anyone in the orchestra ever saw the Vision report. (The BSO paid a strategy consultant $3 million for that work.)
I will go one step further. Based on the snippets from the report that have made it into the press, the "Vision" is word salad. I can picture Nelsons looking at the finished product and going "wtf is this?"
As a former BSO musician, watching the wholly unnecessary internal strife has been distressing. One hopes that the pressure being exerted from many corners, not the least yours, will lead to the institutional change that so many of us want.
Thanks for your comment. I understand the distress. Professional musicians work incredibly hard to perform at a high level, and the front office treats the orchestra like a herd of cattle.
This front office, perhaps. Not all. There's always a dynamic tension between the artistic side and business side of a symphony orchestra. When things are working well, there's a feeling of mutual respect and understanding. But in the current situation, that productive synergy has been decimated.
Yes, I meant the current BSO front office
Thanks, Mr. Dinsmore. You deserve a Pulitzer for your investigative reporting, which, as you note, arts journalists from major publications have failed to do. You are a one-man Woodward and Bernstein. You have provided the documented information that the hitherto gutless BSO Trustees have chosen to ignore.
<blushing> I'll settle for a double espresso
The statement Smith makes about the rift with Nelsons is especially pertinent. Insider backstage knowledge at the BSO is that for a complete year leading up to this debacle, Nelson's team was constantly asking Smith for information about the future vision and the "strategic plan". Smith would not answer. It was not possible for Nelsons to " not support the future vision" because he didn't know what it was. The only conversations that took place, were about whether there should be Pops concerts as part of the opening Gala week for the beginning of the the fall BSO Classical season. Nelsons wanted that week to feature the Symphony Orchestra not the Pops. After all it was supposed to be celebrating the opening of the classical season. Nelsons was supposedly able to secure his wishes for this coming fall 2026 but who knows what will happen in following years.
When a portion of the fiduciary board voted to fire Nelsons, they were told they needed to save the " integrity of the the BSO".
It is apparent that the exact opposite is occurring. Reading this article, one realises that on an Artistic level, a Fiduciary level, and an a Human level, Smith is damaging the "integrity" of the Boston Symphony Orchestra.
This needs to be stopped.
Thanks for reading, and for your comment.
I think that Smith invented that Nelsons quote. It was a reckless thing to do, because he put himself and the BSO in legal jeopardy.
Others have told me the same thing -- neither Nelsons nor anyone in the orchestra ever saw the Vision report. (The BSO paid a strategy consultant $3 million for that work.)
I will go one step further. Based on the snippets from the report that have made it into the press, the "Vision" is word salad. I can picture Nelsons looking at the finished product and going "wtf is this?"
https://www.br-klassik.de/aktuell/news-kritik/lucius-hemmer-intendant-nuernberger-symphoniker-kuendigung-spekulationen-100.html
A plausible future for Mr. Smith, ja?
Sadly, the only German I know is Mahler's tempo indications
Your browser should? might? translate for you. It's....instructive, if oblique.
Looks like this story
https://slippedisc.com/2026/05/breaking-german-orchestra-fires-respected-intendant/