As avid supporters of the Minnesota Orchestra, we were stunned to read about the worries facing it during this financially troubled time ("Worries crescendo for Minnesota Orchestra," April 12).
In retrospect, it may not have been the best time to embark upon the major updating of Orchestra Hall, but those plans have been in process for a long time, and it would be unfortunate if they were to be compromised by the current squeeze.
The first question seems to me to be whether the community and the administration are supporting the marvelous musicians who have elevated the orchestra's reputation to what seems to be its highest level in modern times.
Whenever one starts to compare the Minnesota Orchestra with other groups -- as the Star Tribune did in the table that ran next to the article -- I think there should be an adjustment for the standard of living in each of the metropolitan areas. (Perhaps that was done, but if so, it was not obvious to me.)
This sort of adjustment is often done in comparing countries, and I think it is essential for this comparison. I suspect the cost of living is substantially higher, at least in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, compared with the Twin Cities.
I do hope that both sides of the negotiation will consider how much they need each other, and that the community will consider how much we all benefit from keeping the orchestra among the best in the world.
In addition to enriching the lives of the listeners, the orchestra should also be considered among the attractions noted by those who decide where corporations locate headquarters and where they decide to expand (or avoid).
JOHN T. (JACK) GARLAND, MINNEAPOLIS
