Donald L. Rosenblitt's erudite and interesting riff on David Schiff's article “Classical Appeal” uses the metaphor of the plight of symphony orchestras to segue into the state of classical psychoanalysis. He hits a good note. Orchestras confront phenomena that BOPS and our institutes must consider. “The idea that every middle-sized American city deserves a ‘major orchestra’ has proved … seductive and … untenable” becomes a pointed message to the Committee on New Training Facilities. Since 1950, our older cities have lost between 25 percent and 50 percent of their population, and both classical music and classical psychoanalysis have diversified their offerings. Schiff, at least, attributes this to the financial selfishness of practitioners and their institutional business managers.
The history of musical programming has cycled from the time of Freud's birth, when opera singers included “Home Sweet Home” in their recitals, to the 1930s when the need to develop a musical public, as well as acute financial need, led to concerts for tots, government support of free music, and an outreach of professional art and music into the schools. In those intervening 80 years, programs did change; Brahms' historical cast of mind and conservative tastes contributed substantially to “the split between composers and the middle class audience.” In a multicultural, democratic world, a practitioner's loss of contact with ordinary people can be fatal. Support of classically pure musical and analytic programming fails to recognize the short history of both. After all, Freud himself was a “crossover” artist and not as classical as some Freudians are.
When musicians “cross over” to play, they gain respect for themselves and engagement and understanding from a different audience. Bobby McFerrin, the son of the first African-American with a regular contract at the Metropolitan Opera, has impeccable “classical” credentials. His success at creating his own musical niche should impress us as analysts, as should Wynton Marsalis' crossover performances of trumpet concertos.
The challenge of a declining subscriber base has mobilized both symphony programmers and institutes to reach out to new audiences. Both entities focus on cultivating and raising the taste of the community through engaging programs. Dr. Rosenblitt's personal solution — listening to a familiar, reliable, favorite classical CD at home — is the death knell for the orchestra and, I believe, for psychoanalysis. Live performance is powerful and mobilizing. Where is our leadership heading? What are the alternatives that Drs. Rosenblitt and Benson propose for us? Is it unethical to admit candidates when we cannot sustain high standards and the demand for psychoanalysis continues to decline? What is BOPS's responsibility for participating in this programming? Is Dr. Rosenblitt suggesting that we return to our books, journals, the PEP CD-ROM, and analysis outside of insurance support and let our beleaguered but well-trained “symphony orchestra” go under?
Judith S. Schachter