By George Whiting & Quinn MacKenzie, Co-founders, BSO Patron Action Network and Red Flower Campaign

Which Boston Symphony Orchestra does Chad Smith actually lead?

Is it the troubled institution he described earlier this year, an orchestra that had supposedly lost its spark, struggled to fill its hall, faced declining revenues, and needed fundamental changes to reestablish itself among the nation’s leading orchestras? Or is it the confident, historically grounded institution he celebrates in his September 15^th Boston Globe Op-Ed, buoyed by record fundraising, generations of innovation, and a proud tradition of artistic excellence? Both descriptions came from the same CEO. Both cannot be true. Flowery prose and a call to begin the “next chapter” is not enough to reconcile these wildly different characterizations of the state of the orchestra.

In June, Smith told the New York Times that the BSO had once been “the most innovative orchestra in the world,” but that “somewhere along the line, we lost that spark of imagination, or we lost that sense of momentum pushing us forward and breaking boundaries.” The Times further reported that Smith believed fundamental changes were needed to “reestablish the Boston Symphony as one of the leading orchestras in the nation,” particularly through more adventurous programming.

It was an extraordinary way for the CEO of one of the world’s great orchestras to describe his own institution, especially one that had recently won two more Grammy Awards under Andris Nelsons, with a total of 6 of the BSO’s 13 Grammys achieved under Nelsons’ tenure.

Now, Smith offers a strikingly different portrait.

His recent Globe op-ed [HERE] opens by celebrating another “exciting season” at Tanglewood and a second consecutive year of record fundraising. He invokes Henry Lee Higginson, Serge Koussevitzky, and the BSO’s “proud history of excellence in music and innovation.” He closes by declaring, “All we have to do is look at our history to chart our future.”

So which is it?

Has the BSO lost its standing, its imagination and its momentum? Or does its history already provide the foundation for its future?

Is the institution facing declining contributions, as the Times reported in June? Or is it enjoying record fundraising for the second year in a row, as Smith now tells Globe readers?

Was Andris Nelsons standing in the way of transformation the BSO supposedly required? Or should he now be “celebrated” for 13 years of accomplishments, while leadership still avoids explaining why it decided to end his tenure?

Smith’s new op-ed says the BSO’s next chapter begins with its musicians. That sounds encouraging, but it also raises an unavoidable question: Why did the previous chapter end without them?

The musicians learned of the decision to end Nelsons’ tenure at virtually the same time as the public. Their opposition was immediate and unmistakable. Whatever new consultative protections were won through collective bargaining, they do not retroactively make the Nelsons decision collaborative.

A new contract is progress. It is not accountability.

Smith now praises a “historic partnership” that will give musicians half the seats on the search committee for the next music director. That provision matters. But the fact that it was even necessary stands as an implicit acknowledgment that musicians did not have a meaningful voice in the decision-making leading up to that search.

The op-ed also repeatedly invokes community. Smith asks, “How do we better serve our community?”

The answer is simple: Start by listening to it.

For six months, thousands of patrons have written letters, worn red flowers, and asked BSO leadership to explain what “future vision” made Nelsons incompatible with the institution. More than 4,200 people have signed a petition calling for the BSO to engage with the community, and over 12,500 red flowers have been handed out to audience members. Yet patrons are entirely absent from Smith’s new vision of collaboration.

He describes Symphony Hall as “a civic monument, not a private club.” If that is truly the governing principle, then the people who attend concerts, support the institution and care about its future cannot be treated as spectators in a conversation about their orchestra.

Collaboration cannot stop at the stage door.

Neither can the BSO’s history only be used selectively. Higginson and Koussevitzky should not be invoked simply to lend grandeur to a management narrative. The BSO’s history also demands artistic excellence and respect for the musicians who carry that history onto the stage.

Smith wants audiences to look forward. But the BSO cannot credibly chart its future while refusing to offer any explanation for its past decisions.

What precisely was the disagreement with Nelsons?

What vision did he supposedly reject?

Why was an internationally respected music director, still producing extraordinary work with the orchestra, deemed incompatible with its future?

And if the BSO is truly committed to collaboration, why has leadership still not agreed to a public conversation with the patrons and community it repeatedly claims to serve?

The Boston Symphony Orchestra does not need to issue another polished declaration about unity. It needs to provide straight answers.

Support for the BSO and asking for accountability from its leadership are not opposing positions. Neither are support for the musicians and support for Andris Nelsons. Many of us continue to believe in all these things because we care deeply about the institution and what it can be.

Chad Smith has now offered two dramatically different accounts of the orchestra he leads. Before he asks Boston to embrace its next chapter, he should explain which account is true.

Will the real Chad Smith please stand up?