With Strings Attached

[Perry Winkle]

Good stuff!

I think it's pretty simple:

Take the woman's money, but don't undertake any contractual obligation to perform the piece. If it's worthy, perform it. If it sucks, blow her off (after the check clears). You don't do anyone favors by subsidizing medicority.

Take the company's money. If you're worried about the moral implications of taking money from a company that engages in questionable business tactics, you can comfort yourself with the fact that the more money Phillip Morris gives to you, the less they can spend on recruiting more smokers. Or you could even use the money for a anti-smoking campaign in those third world countries.

(I love answering ethical questions. I never know how far I believe what I spew.)

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

If GVO takes the money from Altria, does that association lend tacit approval to Altria's business practices?

This one is really hard to answer. It's in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent. What other corporate sponsors can we think of (no need to involve Playboy ) who are sufficiently well-behaved to not get SOMEBODY irked? Indeed, the name Altria isn't going to be immediately recognized as tobacco-related by a lot of people. On the other hand, those who do recognize it... well, I guess we're just negotiating the price, Ma'am. (I write as one whose college education was largely funded by the Reynolds family fortune. I would have to lean toward taking the money. They have a long history of philanthropy in this area, they sponsor other groups, and it's just damned hard to find a donor who's never done something you disagree with. Beyond that it's just a question of degree.

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Replace Altria with Playboy, a company that some patrons of the orchestra might find offensive, but which the board members and orchestra members do not. Does it change the equation?

Who else is important, if the board doesn't care? Other donors? It should be easy enough to talk with them privately and say, we have this offer. I'm not sure it's a good idea to take it. What do you think? (This may have the side benefit of shaking loose some more cash from the smaller donors.)

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

If GVO chooses to perform the work by Wagner's nephew, it makes an implied statement about the value of the piece. GVO is known for performing works by new composers

Have all these works been of uniform quality? Surely there are some stinkers out of the lot.

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

does it make a difference if the composition by Wagner's nephew is a well-written piece, and might have been debuted by GVO without the aunt's interference? Does it make a difference if he is an already established composer?

It does not matter. He could be love-child of J. S. Bach and Johannes Brahms. People will see the names on the program and assume he got the nod because of his aunt's influence. This would be less true if she had been a long-standing supporter of the orchestra.

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

Good stuff!
Take the woman's money, but don't undertake any contractual obligation to perform the piece. If it's worthy, perform it. If it sucks, blow her off (after the check clears).

Very bad idea. This only delays the inevitable by a year. She undoubtedly has more than enough influence to make other people think twice about donating.