"While there used to be one or two Pops orchestras, now there are all kinds of European orchestras that suddenly look upon this as a golden wand that can enable them to make money recording this music"
About this Quote
There is a veteran’s side-eye baked into Skitch Henderson’s phrasing: “suddenly,” “golden wand,” “make money.” He’s not merely describing a trend in orchestral programming; he’s puncturing the romance that institutions like to wrap around it. Pops orchestras were once a specific ecosystem - a bridge between the concert hall and mass entertainment, with its own repertoire, audience habits, and show-business instincts. Henderson helped build that world, so when he hears European orchestras pivoting into “this music,” he doesn’t hear curiosity. He hears strategy.
The “golden wand” metaphor is doing two jobs. It caricatures the industry fantasy that a repertoire switch can magically solve financial problems, and it hints at something faintly unserious - a wand belongs to spectacle, not craft. That’s the sting: Pops, in his telling, is being treated less as a tradition than as a monetizable costume. The line carries an anxiety about authenticity and ownership, but not in a territorial, nationalistic way. It’s about intent. Who is playing the music because they understand its social function - its immediacy, its crowd-pleasing pacing, its loosened etiquette - and who is playing it because the market rewards “accessibility”?
Contextually, this reads like the late-20th-century collision of classical branding with recording economics: ensembles chasing broader audiences, labels chasing crossover sales, and “Pops” becoming a keyword for commercial viability. Henderson’s critique lands because it admits the obvious (money matters) while refusing to let money pose as artistic destiny.
The “golden wand” metaphor is doing two jobs. It caricatures the industry fantasy that a repertoire switch can magically solve financial problems, and it hints at something faintly unserious - a wand belongs to spectacle, not craft. That’s the sting: Pops, in his telling, is being treated less as a tradition than as a monetizable costume. The line carries an anxiety about authenticity and ownership, but not in a territorial, nationalistic way. It’s about intent. Who is playing the music because they understand its social function - its immediacy, its crowd-pleasing pacing, its loosened etiquette - and who is playing it because the market rewards “accessibility”?
Contextually, this reads like the late-20th-century collision of classical branding with recording economics: ensembles chasing broader audiences, labels chasing crossover sales, and “Pops” becoming a keyword for commercial viability. Henderson’s critique lands because it admits the obvious (money matters) while refusing to let money pose as artistic destiny.
Quote Details
| Topic | Music |
|---|
More Quotes by Skitch
Add to List



