«We wanted to prolong the experience of the GMJO», says Geoffroy Schied, one of the founding members of the MCO. Inspired by their experiences performing in the Gustav Mahler Jugendorchester, in 1997, a group of young musicians, having reached the orchestra’s age-limit of 26, resolved to continue playing together. With the help of their musical patron, Claudio Abbado, the group formed its own ensemble, naming it the Mahler Chamber Orchestra in recognition of their common roots.
The history of music is marked by artists or groups of musicians who broke with convention to create something new. In 1882, the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra was founded by a group of disgruntled musicians who split from the so-called Bilse’schen Kapelle to become masters of their own fate. Almost a century after the Berlin Philharmonic’s first steps, trans-national orchestras, such as the Chamber Orchestra of Europe, began establishing themselves as independent, self-administering ensembles in response to the increasingly globalised character of the musical community. Over the years, the Philharmonic has grown into Berlin’s most celebrated publicly-funded orchestra, with a global reputation. In many ways, its pre-eminent status was, and still is, anchored in a democratic organisational structure which cultivates an assured self-consciousness among the musicians.
Taking pages from each of these examples, the MCO developed its own model. «I was asked if I would be interested in helping manage the orchestra», remembers Andrea Zietzschmann, the MCO’s first General Manager. «Although we first set up the office in Berlin, it was in no way clear where the orchestra would be based, or how it would be run. We only knew that the interests of the individual orchestra members – whose initiative it was to create the orchestra in the first place – were the priority.»
Partly under the influence of Abbado and a number of the MCO’s founding members’ mentors in the Berlin Philharmonic, the ensemble developed, as Geoffroy calls it, a «democratic decision-making culture.» Players remained free musicians, at liberty to coordinate their MCO commitments with other engagements in their respective home countries. This flexibility today represents one of the orchestra’s greatest strengths: «Our ability to adapt to the requirements of individual projects makes us unique and attractive», says Zietzschmann’s successor, Andreas Richter.
Of course, the variable structure also poses challenges, among them the travel and logistical complexity of assembling the dozens of individual musicians from their respective corners of world for each new project. Also, the MCO’s nomadic character defies the conventional models for financially sustaining an orchestra. With no fixed residence or permanent regional association, the MCO cannot call upon government support, as other publicly-funded orchestras and opera houses do.
Over the years, the MCO has evolved. Its members are still democratically selected by the collective; the board still plays an integral role in MCO planning; the individual players still choose the projects to which they would like to commit; and most importantly, the orchestra still performs with the same enthusiasm as ever. Its members are now seasoned professionals, many of whom now see the MCO as the centerpiece of their musical activity. «It is the tension between flexibility and security», says Richter, «they enjoy playing together and enjoy their independence, but they are no longer in a youth orchestra. Like soloists or conductors, they bear the full responsibility for their artistic endeavours.» In response to the maturation of its musicians, the MCO has sprouted communications and development departments, as well as a patrons’ foundation, to enhance its organisational base.
The MCO experiment: an example or an exception? Only time will tell. The challenge for the future, meanwhile, will be maintaining what Geoffroy calls «our original ideals» of freedom, flexibility and self-determination, while offering sufficient consistency through tours, festivals and residencies to assure the MCO’s musicians medium-term prospects. However, in the case of the MCO, perhaps this paradox represents a healthy contradiction rather than a conflict. As Andreas Richter says: «The cornerstone of the MCO is quality; musicians perform best when they possess the autonomy and responsibility to direct their own destinies.»
