Commentary
To get orchestras out of their financial mess, all sides must accept the new realities
By Eric Nilsson
Eric Nilsson, Falcon Heights, is an attorney. Two members of his family are musicians in the SPCO.
The labor crisis affecting the Minnesota Orchestra and the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra deepened Wednesday, as SPCO management announced a Sunday deadline for musicians to accept its latest offer or face a lockout.
At both orchestras, the impasse can be summed up this way:
Musicians believe that they're underappreciated; that their skills deserve higher compensation than management wants to grant, and that management has been derelict in fundraising and too emulative of cost-cutting business executives.
Management, in turn, claims that it does fully appreciate the musicians; that it doesn't have the money to pay what the musicians want, and that raising dough for classical music is one tough job, and in time, if expenses aren't aligned with revenues, the gig will be up.
As one who appreciates both the Minnesota Orchestra and the SPCO, and as current chair of the Governing Members of the SPCO (a group of 150 dedicated contributors), I have a few thoughts on the current labor discord.
There are three realities that all sides — musicians, managers and audiences — need to address. All three are fastballs with a nasty curve:
The first reality is this: However much it takes to become a top-flight classical musician, the performer can expect to earn only what the market is able and willing to pay.
What's the "market"? It's people with money, be it $10 or $10 million, who would buy concert tickets or make donations to current operations and, one would hope, to an endowment for the long haul.
Today, far more "people with money" are inspired to give to charities meeting human needs than are willing to pay top-flight classical music performers year after year. In other words, the problem here is not parsimony. The problem is that unless and until society at large assigns higher value to the extraordinary work of classical music performers, musicians cannot expect to be paid what they deserve.
An important aspect of this first, harsh reality is that the musicians' leverage against management is limited. In other contexts, labor can push against profitability. NFL refs or NHL players, for example, can press against the owners' profits and team values. Not so in the nonprofit world of symphony orchestras, where there is no such thing as "profit" or entity "market value."
None of us who invests in the Minnesota Orchestra or SPCO expects a personal financial return. Nor can most musicians easily join another "team." Regrettably, with few exceptions, orchestras across the country are experiencing serious financial woes.
The first reality points to a second: to increase significantly society's value perception of live, world-class classical music, greater exposure and appreciation (in that order) would need to occur in our schools, starting at kindergarten and continuing through college. The exposure would have to be via the core curriculum, not simply by casual, extracurricular band, choral, orchestra and individual instruction.
People surrounded by classical music can vouch for its intrinsic value and thus, are willing to pay. However, to persuade people without intense exposure to become huge fans and significant financial supporters of orchestras is a tall order. And the payback I'm talking about would be a long process — 20 years if we were to institute today a "core curriculum," K-through-college approach. We would then have to wait 20 years longer before the first crop of people with such exposure would reach an age when they would be capable of making major contributions to the Minnesota Orchestra and the SPCO. (I know what I'm talking about here: In my own case, even after intense exposure to classical music all my life, I didn't start giving substantially until I was well past 40.)
The timeframe associated with the second reality — the links between exposure and appreciation; appreciation and support — leads to a third reality. To keep live, top-flight performances of classical music afloat today, we need to devise new approaches to how music-making by the Minnesota Orchestra and the SPCO is presented, marketed and financed.
For a number of years and to counteract reductions in corporate and foundation contributions because of other needs in the community, the SPCO has run with a three-step approach:
First, make concerts more accessible, by reducing ticket prices (raising ticket prices works against the essential need to grow audiences), performing in 10 venues across the Twin Cities and offering "memberships" (an unlimited number of concerts for just $5 a month).
Second, encourage new audience members to become subscribers and donate.
Third, as people become more committed to the SPCO, get them (like me!) to increase their donations by making more significant annual pledges. This innovative model works well, but it needs more time to expand. And it needs a boost.
Apart from making concerts eminently affordable and accessible, we who want the Minnesota Orchestra and the SPCO to thrive need to attract more people who have not yet experienced enough exposure. We need to figure out how to compress many years' worth of exposure (and thus, appreciation) into a dozen or so concerts over a two- to three-year period. We have to draw more people away from a mind-boggling array of alternative attractions. We have to disabuse people of the stereotypical perception that orchestra concerts are only for snobs or nerds or old folks or some kind of elite.
Personally, I'm in favor of trying any number of radically improbable ideas to introduce more "people with money" to live performances by our orchestras. Smash down the barriers — real and perceived. Plant a group of SPCO players at midfield during halftime at a Vikings game or a bunch of Minnesota Orchestra members on the infield between innings of a Twins game. Drop a few SPCO and Minnesota Orchestra string players onto the stage in the middle of a rock concert. Play in a downtown skyway over lunch hour. Turn all Muzak equivalents in the Twin Cities into advertising for the SPCO and Minnesota Orchestra.
And when it comes to financing, put the full-court press on those people with money, particularly those with plenty of it, many of whom are outside the circle of traditional giving to the Minnesota Orchestra and the SPCO and who have never attended a concert. Give them the same argument that was used on all of us for the Vikings stadium — it's not about liking football or, in the case of the orchestras, about liking Bach, Beethoven or Berg. It's about keeping this a world-class community so as to attract and grow world-class economic activity for the benefit of every single member of the community, whether or not he or she attends football games or orchestra concerts.
Musicians and management alike need to acknowledge these three core realities: that society's value perception of classical music is too low; that the perceived value could be increased exponentially, but it would be a 40-year project; and that radical measures need implementing — today.
Otherwise, the "we want more" theme of the musicians and the "we don't have the dough" refrain by management will devolve into a cacophonous clash of bands repeating the same old tunes until chairs, instruments and musicians slide off a listing stage. The rest of us who love the world-class music of our local orchestral gems will find ourselves in cold, silent water.
Comments (72)
Amid the sea of complaints and the angst of the players who can't believe that being called 'world class' doesn't automatically bequeath them everything they demand, this is a calm and positive article. Thank you!
Thank you for publishing such a good piece on the two orchestras in the Twin Cities. We have the best of the best, but we also need to look at the economics to keep the arts vibrant and available.
Thank you for an incredibly articulate article about the trials and tribulations of promoting orchestra music.
I agree - the musicians aren't paid what they're worth.
And having been a publicist for two major Canadian orchestras .... orchestral music is not easy to promote, either.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Liz
This essay ignores certain key facts. The labor v. management paradigm is absurd for orchestras. Musicians are not blue collar labor, and orchestra managers are not the white collar "experts." A closer parallel would be to physicians and hospital managements. Next, Classical Music not longer is led by great composers, as in the past. The Art now is directed by conductors and managers, who have not felt it to be in their own best interests to seek out and promote the finest modern composers. New music is chosen arbitrarily and preference often is given to composers who have thoroughly demonstrated consistent mediocrity. Consequently, the Art is not renewing itself. Imagine the excitement if a true genius were to emerge, someone comparable to Stravinsky or Beethoven! But that would require the conductors and managers to subordinate their egos and risk being reduced to their former status, that of, at best, talented, essential functionaries.
Classical Revolution Twin Cities is playing in cafes (and bars) to expose new listeners. Find them and support them so they can advertise, expand and hire musicians to play classical where younger folk take in music. It works in small numbers to expose and de-stigmatize. Repeat exposure and word of mouth may work better than advertising.
The Minnesota Orchestra's recordings of Beethoven symphonies are stunningly good. As an ensemble, they compare favorably to the great Concertgebouw Orchestra. The Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra is the finest ensemble of its type in the country. These musicians have fulfilled the job of achieving artistic excellence. In any other job, such excellence would be rewarded. Not so with Minnesota, Saint Paul, and elsewhere.
If the musicians have done their job, who hasn't? The conductors apparently have. That leaves the management and the board. It is their job to arrange concerts, sell tickets, give money, or get money. Doing so would leave the musicians free to focus on their job, which is to achieve and maintain their art at the highest level possible.
When musicians pursue the profession, it is done without guarantees, and with overwhelming odds against gaining a top position. Even so, they invest three to six hours of daily practice, in excess of 15 years' training, and large amounts of money on lessons, schools, and instruments. To place the financial responsibility on the musicians by cutting salaries, work weeks, or benefits in order to balance budgets is not only counter-productive, but ethically dishonest.
Musicians make a pact with society. Having upheld their half, it is time managers and boards uphold theirs.
Larry Wheeler, University of Houston; Former Co-Principal Viola, Minnesota Orchestra
If the orchestra's financial problems are due to insufficient interest in its offerings, lowering pay rates won't protect from further declines in support and further financial difficulties. The most important need is for a detailed and transparent plan to address the actual problems, not just the financial symptoms.
If the community is less supportive than it used to be, perhaps it's time to consider modifying or diversifying the product line. (Plenty of other businesses have had to change their once-successful offerings.) An orchestra can do a huge variety of things, many of which haven't been invented yet.
Rather than "educating" people to like a particular repertoire, why not not find out what kinds of events and what kinds of music would speak compelling to people who are not currently involved? After all, the human yearning for music has not decreased. The community is fortunate to have these crack teams of musicians ready to address that yearning in multiple ways. Teams need creative leadership to make meaningful and successful changes.
Well stated Eric. Bravo
Great that the piece has generated discussion--that was my hope.
Don't get me wrong--I want to focus on innovative thinking, but the full scope of the challenge needs to be faced. Core example: I know some folks who say, "Give more money? Sure, but only if the orchestra plays more new music." Others say, "Sure, we'll give more, but not if we have to hear any more of that modern 'nonsense' music. All we want is Bach to Beethoven." Yet others say, "If you're going to pry me away from Netflix on a Friday or Saturday evening, you'd better perform something that's very entertaining--and no songs [sic] that are more than 10 mintues long." Meanwhile, some veteran concert go-ers, who contribute generously, "What?! You're going to turn this timeless art form into modern, mindless ENTERTAINMENT?! Not on my dime and not with me in the audience!"
Think of the challenge as a complex matrix of costs, tastes and levels of sophistication. In devising a plan for one targeted segment, one needs to be careful not to alienate other segments.
Above all, the musicians themselves have to be in the center of it all! What are their strengths? Weaknesses? What gets THEM fired up? Is a given market--existing and potential--large enough to sustain orchestras that "specialize"? (to a large extent, the SPCO has--chamber music--the only full-time such ensemble in the country).
Ultimately, we need to experiment--rationally. But that takes . . . you guessed it . . . money!
While Eric makes several good points I feel that a few issues were not addressed:
1) How does management plead poverty for paying musicians at the same time that they have been raising millions of dollars to upgrade their physical facilities? While the Ordway campaign (of which the SPCO is a party) is "on hold" it has drawn away millions of dollars that could have gone to the core budget needs of the SPCO and other Ordway tenants. In the case of the Minnesota Orchestra how can the Board JUSTIFY undertaking a $50 million dollar renovation of Orchestra Hall without first addressing the issues that have led to this lockout?
2) Almost all non-profit groups in the Twin Cities are facing the same challenges. What you don't hear of are "shared" efforts between these groups. Computer technology is essential but costly. If groups worked together to share IT costs and functions they could each have a better IT operation and still reduce costs. Has management looked into shared purchasing of goods that are common to their organizations, or determined if they can cut insurance costs by pooling staff from multiple organizations into a single "group" for purposes of health care coverage? The bottom-line is that non-profits can break down "silos" between their groups at the administrative level (sharing staff and functions) and still retain their identity.
Minnesotans will support excellence. MPR has 100,000+ members and the best public radio product in the country!!
Thank you for this well written article. I agree with much of it. Instilling a love for classical music should start before Kindergarten. Research shows that children are at a peak for hearing and retaining pitches at age 4. I've got my preschool music classes begging for Stravinsky and Mahler. I do believe you have missed a very important point when discussing classical music education. We don't have to wait for the preschooler to become an adult to reap any benefits; we need to help parents of all children studying any kind of music, understand why it is so important and how much richer their child's music live can be if the parent provides the opportunity to hear world class musicians playing great music that has stood the test of staying alive for 2oo years.
This is a thought-provoking and intuitive article. Thank you!
This article is on the mark. Anyone who disagrees with it is on crack and is part of the problem. I have a masters degree in music, and right now work towards an MBA. I am tired of classical musicians who take the "elitist entitlement" approach to solving the problem. It hasn't work thus far. The market, not musicians, decides what has value or not. In our attempts to educate the community at large, we can either embrace them or speak down to them. The arrogant, ivory tower approach, that we are somehow entitled to $150,000 a year because of a Julliard degree is going to put all of us out of business. This is a worldwide phenomenon, not limited to the US. Maybe the fiscal collapse of all US orchestras would be a good thing. Maybe it would inspire the kind of self-awareness and humility so desperately absent in many classical artists. The auditions system is broken. The rehearsal system is broken. The programming doesn't work. And finally, musicians need to quit bitching and step up their game. That's what you do when times are bad, you bring your best to the table, and you reach out to the audience. The time for feeling sorry for one's self has ended. Madonna is selling out soccer stadiums and makes $2,000,000 a nite. Orchestras can't make $2,000,000 in a year. Time to step up the game and quit being little children. Again, perhaps a great purging of the arrogant elite will change attitudes for the better......
"We need to figure out how to compress many years' worth of exposure (and thus, appreciation) into a dozen or so concerts over a two- to three-year period. ". This is already partially done, I think, if you consider certain movie scores. I've always wondered if it might be possible to resurrect live music during a film viewing. Partner with Hollywood, print the movie with no music track, stick it in our concert halls, play along as a "pit" orchestra and charge audience members an extra $10 or $15 over movie prices for the experience. Even choreograph lights to shine on individual players during solo work. Wouldn't this appeal to a broader audience?
Obviously many things would have to occur and change to make this happen. But I see it being an attractive way to draw audiences and improve the prestige of players. Consider also if the music could be allowed to "live" by encouraging musicians to improvise and color the film on the spot. Or have resident composers work their own touches into the score. This could create healthy competition between cities with the different ideas that would be brought to the showing.
It's a completely different, non-traditional concert idea but one that I think could bring tons of newness, synergy and freshness to the concert hall.
Sorry to chime in again. I am encouraged by the response the original piece has generated. The combination of music and MBA is a refreshing one and points to the future. David Myers, head of the U o MN School of Music (and a fellow Governing Member of the SPCO) is "all over" this concept--ensuring that music performance majors graduate with a notion of entrepreneurship and the need to construct their own "portfolios" (teaching, small-venue performing, orchestra membership, etc.) by which to make a living.
The movie-score idea is a great one--and emblematic of the kind of creativity and innovation that the presentation of classical music needs so desperately if it is to survive in our culture. It reminds me of how my grandfather Nilsson made his living exactly a century ago: playing in the pit below the silent movie screens in town! Rather than bemoan the demise of this art form, we need to embrace some of the remarkable openings that today's technologies--and indeed attitudes--can provide. And if we're smart about all of this, we can embrace change and development of "new" music without compromising the integrity of great "old" music. In fact, through innovation, we should be able to deepen and broaden appreciation for the timeless masterpieces of the past. Okay--back to making a living in . . . today's marketplace. Thank you all for your thoughtful input.
I must disagree with my fellow Houstonian. (Disclaimer: I am neither on crack nor a part of the problem.) The vitriolic nature of this post serves nothing and solves nothing. Clearly, you have not attained your personal goals by receiving a masters in music, otherwise you would have a job as a performing musician. That must be very frustrating to you and has, unfortunately, turned you bitter. If the negative attitude displayed is to be carried forward into arts management, that too will fail. You can serve the art only by contributing, not by getting even.
Two corrections: 1. The current base pay for Minnesota is $109,304, not $150,000. 2. The correct spelling of my alma mater is Juilliard.
Mr. Nilsson like most misses the point
entirely and covers the same ground over and over with the same
old observations.
If as president of the governing board Mr Nielsson,
I would ask you why no mention of any financial trouble was ever brought to the governing board or the community. Every one was told that everything was great. Seems a bit duplicitous if you ask me. How can the public trust you or the management. You don't seem to tell the same story . You tailor it to fit your needs.
Mr. Nilsson- the following, due to its length, is in two parts.
Part 1- How can symphony orchestras improve their financial stability and ensure long-term viability? Managers and board members see the solution in wage reductions, reduced benefits, and shorter seasons. This serves only to show a lack of initiate and imagination. There is a lack of regard for the experienced musicians, with the mistaken belief that they can easily be replaced by younger, cheaper, and perhaps better players. They see how many recent music school graduates are unemployed, and hear how those school orchestras sound. This follows the corporate model at work throughout our society today. Loyalty no longer exists, except to the bottom line. Older "workers" are expendable. To see this mindset surface in orchestra negotiations with managers and board members, who are largely from that world, should come as no surprise.
What to do? First, recognize that a symphony orchestra is not a money making, or an inherently self-supporting enterprise. From the very beginning, orchestras survived due to the sponsorship of wealthy patrons, royalty, churches, or governments. Today, philanthropists are fewer and less generous, corporations have fewer dollars to contribute, and governments are looking for ways to reduce spending. The arts are the first to go when money is tight. But, without year-to-year stability, it is difficult to maintain an orchestra capable of performing the major, large-scale repertoire. (more)
Part 2- Reducing concerts only reduces whatever income an orchestra may generate. The answer lies in fully utilizing the orchestra members, and setting the membership to achieve that result. Here, top music schools are showing the way. Students are accepted based on the schools' need. There are limited openings in studios, with the individual numbers based on what the schools' ensembles require. Those are broken down further into string, winds, and brass chamber music groups (2 to 8 players, one to a part, without a conductor). Music schools such as NEC, Juilliard, Eastman, and USC (among others) incorporate community service into the curriculum. Education and outreach are the means to develop relevancy and future audiences for the symphony orchestra.
For a symphony, that means a core of strings, woodwinds, and brass that can be made into standing string quartets/quintets. Two pianists would be needed for anything from sonatas to septets. Harp and percussion would be added as required. These chamber music groups would rehearse regularly, as part of the per-service week. Chamber music is a wonderful way to maintain players' performing skills and motivation. These groups could then perform at schools, small concert venues, social functions, etc., serving the community or promoting the orchestra. While some orchestras may do this, usually infrequently, making it part of the job utilizes each player more effectively. This will help preserve that great art form, the symphony.
What orchestras and classical musicians in general have to realize is that we are not living in the 19th century anymore. The world has changed, for better or worse, and instead of standing on our lawns, shaking our fists at the rest of society, the classical music establishment would do well to take a long look in the mirror. Traditional paradigms are alienating audiences and producing far too many music students with few other skills outside performance (I'm one of them and am working on my life skills after a 3-year stint as an orchestral musician.) We need to be innovative, we need to have a dialogue with other disciplines, and we need to accept the fact that, in the future, we all might be better to be more of a Charles Ives and less of a Paganini. Our art is great and it always will be, but it's time to face reality and live in the world. I would rather have more doctors, lawyers, nurses, engineers who are musicians and appreciate music than one highly trained and highly isolated segment of society who don't interact with the rest of the world.
Like Mr. Nilsson, I started giving to arts organizations after the age of 40. Unlike him, however, I am not willing to have the SPCO fall victim to an unsustainable pricing model. The SPCO Board admits that it takes years to grow "loyalty" donations, yet they are willing to trash their "product" - the musicians. And for all of the marketing hype, the prominent concept being pushed by emails and PR literature is "affordable", which too often translates into "cheap".
If the Board is fully committed to their long-term pricing and loyalty donations model, then they must give the same commitment to their musicians and come up with the budget shortfalls until donations kick in. As the SPCO's revenue is over 80% donated, however, I don't see a lot of substainability here.
I will be suspending my sustaining contribution to the SPCO if the lockout occurs.
Like Mr. Nilsson, I started giving to arts organizations after the age of 40. Unlike him, however, I am not willing to have the SPCO fall victim to an unsustainable pricing model. The SPCO Board admits that it takes years to grow "loyalty" donations, yet they are willing to trash their "product" - the musicians. And for all of the marketing hype, the prominent concept being pushed by emails and PR literature is "affordable", which too often translates into "cheap".
If the Board is fully committed to their long-term pricing and loyalty donations model, then they must give the same commitment to their musicians and come up with the budget shortfalls until donations kick in. As the SPCO's revenue is over 80% donated, however, I don't see a lot of substainability here.
I will be suspending my sustaining contribution to the SPCO if the lockout occurs.
And to respond to Spencer, I've already got an MBA. How exactly does a business succeed by cheapening and trashing its product?
Well done, Eric. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis and recommendations.
If we had a resource based society where money was altogether eliminated (and I and many others believe we could have that now), then i believe the arts and artists would experience benefits beyond their wildest expectations.
Trending concentration of wealth in hands of small percentage of population and increasing decline of the middle class does not bode well. Either the rich much contribute a much higher percentage of their worth to support orchestras, or there will need to be a turnaround in the earning power of the middle class...this will take decades. I see no other solution than greater patronage from those who've benefitted most from tax cuts.
Finally an article that STARTS to take a realistic look at the issues orchestras are facing. Yet, while Mr. Nilsson claims to take an overall view, there is very little said about management perspectives on solving the current crisis. Fundamentally, the problem the American orchestra model currently has is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen. The Music Director has his/her desires (whether conscious or not), the Executive Director likewise along with the staff, the Board generally waffles between the MD and the ED, while the musicians have their wishes, which are usually not taken much into consideration, except when it comes to salaries and working hours. I am coming to the conclusion that orchestras need a Platonic "enlightened despot" to function optimally. A leader who explains his/her reasoning, but who has the final say and can impose consequences if not obeyed. Whether that is the conductor, executive director or someone entirely different, I can't say. But it has to be someone who has vision, daring and is willing to test some of those tactics you propose. Currently, orchestras are too much at odds with themselves internally to implement change. So I'm afraid we'll see some Darwinian culling until there is desperation enough all around to allow an enlightened despot to make congruent and intelligent decisions which may bring orchestral music back to the forefront again. I won't be holding my breath, though.
@ Mr. Wheeler:
"Life is not fair; get used to it."
~ Bill Gates
Where can I find that pact made between musicians and society? I have Googled it and nothing comes up. Maybe it got filed in the same place that the pact between steel workers and society did. The "thin air" file folder.
@ Ms. Vitsnokskaya:
"Without music, life would be a mistake."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Perhaps you are looking for the pact in the wrong place or by the wrong means. Unwritten, it is deep in our culture, hidden from the cynic and the malcontent. Many pursue the art of music for the challenge it holds and the reward it gives. Professionally, many are called, but few are chosen. But you, as well as all who choose, may enjoy the fruits of our labor. You will not depart unnourished or unrewarded.
Your "quote" of Bill Gates is false. That is a fact you can actually check on Google.
Eric, you speared all the whales as to causation and the situation as it is on the ground.
However I don't think your solutions will be very effective at stabilizing the finances.
I think modern technology has to be harnessed to increase the audience beyond the bricks and mortar of the concert Hall. In fact tickets sold outside the concert hall need to be the major revenue of orchestras and especially opera companies.
The Berlin philharmonic have just combined forces with Sony and have introduced the digital concert hall. http://www.digitalconcerthall.com/ $12 per concert, season ticket is $185. Video is ultra HD with 4K resolution. Audio is multichannel with some digital compression, streaming rate is a little better then DVD, but below Blue Ray, which is loss less.
The Royal Opera House bought Opus Arte a few years ago and they have built up a large catalog of fine opera performances on BD.
The Met is now issuing their HD live on BD. There are now many orchestral productions on BD.
Video and high quality multichannel audio are now joined at the hip.
I have designed and built equipment to get the best from this exciting new media. It actually delivers an experience better then most seats in the house and comparable to the best. For Opera, I think it is better than going to the Opera house, and so do my opera loving friends who have been exposed to this system. Don't forget I can buy three operas on BD for one ticket to the opera.
To finalize my remarks, the central solution to this problem is to realize that the arts have to be drivers of the new economy producing real product of value. This is becoming well understood in Europe. We need to catch up.
The performance of modern technology is truly astounding. Providing low bit rate audio streams of concerts will get us nowhere. Delivering high quality AV product to the home is where it is heading. The time to gear up for this massive change of approach is now. The survival of our two orchestras depends on it. The market is now the world and not just the concert halls of the Twin Cities.
Alliances need to be made to deliver high quality product to a world wide audience.
Eric if you are interested get a hold of me. I can get this rolling. There is no time to waste. Others are moving fast and will build market share ahead of us.
Larry, you compare the Minnesota Orchestra to Concertgebouw. Just for your info, compare also the salaries - the Concertgebouw´some musicians are paid $2500 - $3000 a month. With all the respect, try to live on that in Amsterdam !
Dariusz, the comparison I made to the Concertgebouw was artistic, not financial. That orchestra is considered the best ensemble in the world, but it is also famously underpaid. There are many factors in a musician's salary, such as work schedule, time off, and prestige that do not show up in salary charts. If the European orchestras' salaries were so low, those musicians would be auditioning for, and winning, American orchestra jobs. That is not the case. To be fair, you should compare conductor's salaries, as well. The $1 million base pay for Osmo Vänskä is almost triple that of Mariss Jansons. The hall in Amsterdam is also considered the finest. (I'm not sure about the lobby, though.)
The basic issue is that the musicians in the Twin Cities have given their audiences a musical castle, and now, their boards don't want to pay the rent.
This is a great piece, Eric, but prompts a couple of key reactions. One is that efforts all over the country to infuse meaningful music and other arts into K-12 curriculum have been ongoing for well over 40 years, but have taken hold in only a small minority of schools and districts. The other is that if we're talking about a 40- or even 20-year approach, let's think about a business model that would allow for the elimination of the need for contributions, rather than focusing on developing donors, by making orchestral music more mainstream in every way.
This is a good article. And many of the comments are also good. The comment about the redistribution of wealth to the wealth in the past 30 years is spot on. We need to get more money back into the hands of the middle class, which will help the economy. There is nothing that guarantees a living or a good wage to musicians or anybody else. Omaha Symphony has been doing music for films for several years, but I don't have any info on how well it has done, but it does seem to be popular which should mean it is making money. The fact that the economy has been trashed has greatly affected donations, and to make up the shortfall orchestras have had to take money out of endowments, which is never a good thing. The comment about exposing kids to music at a young age is good, and then getting their parents involved is a good extension.
A musician's job is more than practicing and playing well. Musicians and management need to work together to come up with a solution. Creative programing is necessary. I understand the need to play music that appeals to many people. It is also necessary to expose people to more challenging music. Is there a way of mixing the two? Last night we heard a concert with Barber Overture to School for Scandal and Cello Concerto, which were brilliant. We also heard two short modern pieces that were fun and interesting and received well by the audience. The last piece was Copeland. In past few years too many concerts were great for some but not all.
After reading most responses one
comes to understand that most writers
are out of touch with the reality of the
concert world about them
,and spew the same nonsense over and over . It is all feel good knee
jerk response minus thought . The
answer stares them in the face but
they keep up with the emperors new clothes approach . Very sad .
Mr. Nilsson, in a nutshell what you are describing is what I call the Tuxedo Revolt. In a situation this complicated, there are no simple answers and all parties have to re-examine the realities. That said, I believe that if we are all willing to set aside our differences, to truly set them aside, in order to brainstorm ways to engage audiences in a relevant way, we can survive this. I wrote a recent article on www.tuxedorevoltblog.wordpress.com about this issue. I propose that both sides turn down the heat or at least redirect it to establishing new models instead of those that are clearly failing. If we can adapt we can survive. But the key, to adapt together. Thanks for the informative article, and issues you address are all too real. It's time for new thought and new philosophy to be introduced to compliment the art form we all love so dearly.
Wow! Many very thoughtful and insightful comments. They underscore the complexity of the challenges facing the community of music-lovers, but they also point to some promising routes to higher ground.
It seems to me that three focal points deserve particular consideration: 1. Technology/presentation (Using advances in technology and taking into account social, cultural and demographic changes, how can we re-jigger the way in which the "product" can be experienced?) 2. Financing (How can new and innovative funding sources be cultivated, developed and sustained?); and 3. Organizational (What innovations can be brought both to how talent is assembled and how the product--i.e. the music itself, not the musicians--is managed?)
I have just two additional observations for now:
1. To sustain classical music, we need to operate under a theme of relevance--in other words, from the viewpoint of the mainstream, what's culturally relevant? Once we've identified "culturally relevant," how do we infuse it in how we present, market and finance classical music?
2. Concomitantly, change must be embraced and leveraged, not feared and resisted. Ironically, through change, things of timeless value can actually be made more secure. Often, to hang on to old, unrealistic models; to malign new realities without understanding them, is to imperil the very thing one strives to preserve.
Mr. Nilsson,
As you know, this is an all-important time of restructuring the orchestra's contract. The very future of your great orchestra is at stake.
You asked what fires up musicians. The answer is chamber music (not to be confused with chamber orchestra, such as SPCO). The MO has many gifted and experienced chamber musicians, which greatly contributes to the orchestra's cohesiveness. Utilizing that strength serves many purposes-artistic, community, and educational. Please see what the musicians' reaction is to having multiple chamber music groups, with rehearsals and performances incorporated into the 8-9 service week.
You also asked about financing. Foundations and corporations give more for educational purposes than for performances. This may be an underutilized funding resource.
Most importantly, engage your musicians in the discussion. Their ability to think creatively and solve problems, especially those affecting their future, cannot be underestimated.
Mr. Nilsson,- has he got it all wrong
in his three focal points- first it is not
by any stretch of the imagination a
"product " of any sort .And to think in
those terms (re-jigger product) is to face defeat at the outset . The two additional observations while fleetingly touch on the
subject, actually say nothing, but it
is the norm for so called "insightful "
thinking . What is called "classical" music comes from a much different
world than ours and the white haired audience that still go are left overs
from just after WW2 who live in the past-the current younger audience what ever there is of it listen with"different " ears - mainly passing
"entertainment" while texting friends
during a concerts' progress . Not
the same thing as the older audience
who went to concerts to be entertained on a level quite different
from the entertainment requirements
of the present day .This is the age
of playing the Beethoven 9th to the
accompaniment of fireworks . Its
initial musical meaning and words mean nothing to present youngsters
except as an historical musical
entertainment at which one waits
dutifully through everything until the exciting march and chorus .Take
in mind the aged Rolling Stones just
sold out two concerts in 7 minutes with tickets starting @$150. & up & scalped in the thousands,- they have the audience. "Classical music"lacks an audience because it always speaks to the past which was once the music of the future.
AJ, you have it wrong. I can tell you it is not hard to create an audience for classical music. Visitors come here quite often, and most have never attended a concert.
When they are in my AV room, it is not Hollywood or the pop culture that excites them, it is large symphony orchestra on the big screen with gorgeous sound in multichannel audio. That really gets them excited, and some want to come back to watch opera which also gets them excited.
Unfortunately the classical music organizations think you can get people enthused about classical offerings with dreadful quality low bit stream feeds to mobile devices and computers, just connected to miserable computer speakers. Well I hate classical music that way and that is all I listen to and do attend concerts.
Music distribution is geared to the pop culture and does classical music a huge disservice.
What is required is for the US musical arts to have a one stop shop for high quality AV distribution. Alliances need to be made with equipment manufacturers, retailers and home builders.
The arts organization need to educate the public and expose them to the possible. They also need to be very active in educating the public on how to set this up.
I firmly believe that the musical arts can be a powerful economic generator and be a creator of new product and wealth, instead of just absorbing it.
Just look at the multiplier effect from equipment design manufacture, installation and the jobs in production and delivery.
Mr. Nilsson,
Anyone, such as yourself, who presents a thought or point of view, risks being subjected to unreasonable attacks. Such is the political climate in which we live, where it seems ideas cannot be discussed in a civil manner. Please ignore any poster without a name or city of origin, as they do not have the courage of their convictions.
Anyone who believes that classical music only speaks to the past has no understanding of its content. The human emotions expressed by Handel, Beethoven, Mahler, or Barber are as relevant today as when written.
The key is to teach people the language and meaning of music. A Young Peoples' Concert could be replete with twin video screens following the score, interspersed with pictures and the orchestra. They are, after all, a visually oriented generation. Or, how about an iPad concert, with a wifi hotspot doing the same?
Thank you for providing the opportunity to share thoughts.
Mr. Nilsson,
Anyone, such as yourself, who presents a thought or point of view, risks being subjected to unreasonable attacks. Such is the political climate in which we live, where it seems ideas cannot be discussed in a civil manner. Please ignore any poster without a name or city of origin, as they do not have the courage of their convictions.
Anyone who believes that classical music only speaks to the past has no understanding of its content. The human emotions expressed by Handel, Beethoven, Mahler, or Barber are as relevant today as when written.
The key is to teach people the language and meaning of music. A Young Peoples' Concert could be replete with twin video screens following the score, interspersed with pictures and the orchestra. They are, after all, a visually oriented generation. Or, how about an iPad concert, with a wifi hotspot doing the same?
Thank you for providing the opportunity to share thoughts.
Handel spoke to his time ,Beethoven to his as Mahler did to his . The style of playing , the instruments - the pitch the strings etc. etc. have nothing to do with what we hear to-day .The relevance of to-day is quite an elaborate make believe but it suits our purpose
in presenting it to audiences as part of a hand me down culture.Even in some programme works music has no meaning except that given by the listener which can vary from one listener to the next . It is odd that one
would use an iPad and pictures for promoting composers who relied upon and wrote for a"live" audience .
Is it that at one time people listened with their ears and not their" eyes ". Thank heavens I can still go to an art gallery without some fiddler standing by sawing away to help me understand a painting . We seem to feel a Beethoven symphony needs pictures to explain what is an aural experience .No where in a Mozart symphony are there instructions to hold up a painting to enhance what is an aural experience . Music has no meaning and exists only to give aural pleasure , excitement or even distress after which people write on how these sounds have affected them personally,- all subjective thoughts .
A J (or whomever you are), I find your lack of knowledge on the subject of classical music stunning. Beethoven wrote a program to his 6th symphony, Vivaldi to the Four Seasons, and Berlioz to the Symphonie Fantastique, to name but a few. Perhaps the subject matter of Handel's Messiah escapes you, or Mahler's Resurrection Symphony, or Stravinsky's Firebird. Most likely, you find Shakespeare outdated, or Dickens, or Joyce, since they only spoke to the people of their time.
Classical music requires an intelligent listener meeting the music half way. It is not played at you through sheer force of volume, or by resorting to profanity or blatant sexuality. (Although some classical music pieces are definitely for adults only.) I encourage you to explore beyond the objective and the literal in your experiences. There is a wonderful world out there that is yours for the taking. Good luck on your journey. And goodbye.
A very good article and very thoughtful responses. I have a few of my own.
To Roger Battreal, who asked "how does management plead poverty for paying musicians at the same time that they have been raising millions of dollars to upgrade their physical facilities," there is a world of difference between fundraising for a capital campaign and fundraising for annual operating support. It is easier to raise a one time $20 million for a building renovation than it is to raise $1 million in annual funds year in, year out.
My second response is to Larry Wheeler's comment: " If the musicians have done their job, who hasn't? The management and the board. It is their job to arrange concerts, sell tickets, give money, or get money. "
This completely ignores three salient and potent facts: a.) the U.S. is still recovering from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression; b.) even before that, for years the cost of running orchestras was rising faster than could be sustained on a longterm basis by even the healthiest contributed revenue programs and c.), there is the compounding effect of fewer and fewer people wanting to go to concerts, so even more contributed revenue is needed to keep up with the decline in ticket sales.
In addition to being breathtakingly arrogant, clearly the attitude Mr. Wheeler's comment typifies isn't working out so well for musicians these days.
Mr. Beulow, allow me to respond. You have selectively chosen what I have written in order to prove your point. My first post presented the problems. My second, from Oct. 19 at 1:28pm, offered a solution. If you read that post, you will see that I said: "Today, philanthropists are fewer and less generous, corporations have fewer dollars to contribute, and governments are looking for ways to reduce spending. The arts are the first to go when money is tight." My third post, from Oct. 20, and addressed to Mr. Nilsson, offers more suggestions to improve the Minnesota Orchestra's financial situation. So, your assertion that I have ignored your 3 salient facts is clearly in error. (Another error, the lobby is $50 million.)
You do not know me. I have taught music for 40 years, in that time working with many of the most gifted of the younger generation of string players. Some are members of the Minnesota Orchestra. 20 years ago, I founded a youth orchestra, through which I have helped train at least 2500 young musicians. I care deeply about the future of classical music. As any director of a non-profit will tell you, the function of any board member is, simply: Give money, get money, or get off the board.
Nowhere in your post do I see any constructive suggestions, only the same tired attacks on musicians. It is too bad that, according to you, I, as a musician, do not know my place, and that speaking out makes me arrogant. I have earned my right to speak, sir. Get over yourself.
Mr. Wheeler, my post wasn't intended to be a "tired attack on musicians," and I'm sorry you perceived it that way. I perceived your post as a "tired attack on management," so perhaps we both need to do a better job of listening.
You don't know me either, but I think most of the musicians in my orchestra would tell you that I would walk through fire for them.
My comment was in response to your intimation that the reason these orchestras are failing is because the board and management haven't done their jobs. I think that is unfair and simplistic. I don't know the Minnesota Orchestra management, but I have been watching the SPCO management AND musicians admiringly for years and have been truly impressed with the way they have tried to be innovative, creative, and think outside the box *together.*
And the last word is key. You're right, I have no magic solutions to offer, but musicians, board and management working together to find solutions would be a good start.
@ Mr. Wheeler:
Who cares who said what. The gist of the quote I put up is true enough. And while I don't particularly care for Nietzsche's philosophy, I can not disagree with his quote.
However, you are sadly mistaken if you claim every classical music concert is a social contract about deep fulfillment and artistic expression. Based on your thinking as it seems, you take an Epicurean view that "Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit..." I tend to agree more with Grotius that humans are individuals sui juris.
In other words, people get to vote with their feet - or rather, these days - with their dollars.
It seems that by the Grotian definition, orchestras and classical music are not providing any kind of deep fulfillment to a rather disproportionately large part of the general population. For this reason alone, your postulation that an unwritten contract to support classical music is nonexistent. Perhaps Nietasche was referring to country music and hip hop.
Beyond that I have been to many an unfulfilling and unrewarding concert with top orchestras and world-famous soloists, who treated their performances as mere routine.
I think you need to revise your view of the classical musician as an artistic übermensch. Supply and demand, I believe, are part of natural law and hence the social contract. The fact is that classical music is on the rocks because it has stopped renewing itself as it maintains your kind of mindset. People have rights. Musicians don't.
Mr. Buelow, while this forum was not intended to become personalized, I appreciate your measured response to my post. Now that you know a bit about me, I have also learned that you are Executive Director of the Tacoma Symphony. As a music director and founder of a youth orchestra, I am management myself. You should be pleased to know that my small organization has stayed in the black (often barely) for the past 18 years. The process is simple- if you don't have it, don't spend it. Any shortfall comes out of my pocket, so, I literally put my money where my mouth is. I believe any committed board member should be willing to do the same.
I agree with your blog about the cost of solo artists- the classical 1%. That facet of orchestral expenses has not been mentioned here, and should be. For a soloist, no matter how wonderful, to earn in a single evening what a section musician makes in an entire year, is unjustifiable. Likewise, no conductor is worth more than ten times the minimum musician's salary. Both point to a "star" mentality too often based on a lack of musical understanding.
I do not agree with your belief that raising $20 million (actually $50 million) for a hall renovation should be easier than covering an annual deficit. In Minnesota, that $50 million would cover 25 years of deficits! But, contributors value nameable structures over people- especially when those people are viewed as expendable. You have said that the focus should be on those on stage. I fully agree!
Ms. Vitsnokskaya,
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what in the world you are saying. Have a good day.
Two points I'd like to make:
1. The management of the Minnesota Orchestra planned very poorly when raising money to upgrade their lobby. Obviously, much of the funds raised for that project could have been raised to fund the orchestra instead. That mistake by management has hurt the musicians. However... it's done, nothing can be done to change that. Money raised for the hall cannot be diverted to another purpose, unless it is returned and re-donated.
2. To comment on the musicians, the idea that their job is to make music, and management's job is to simply raise money, is a naive and unrealistic one.
The endless comments about how music will save the world, society needs music, etc, means something entiredly different to a growing society of people between the ages of 12-40 who would rather spend their money on Justin Beiber, Christina Aguilera, Beyonce, JayZ, and Madonna. That is music to them.
It could be considered that modern (classical) music has created a void and alienated masses of people who choose to listen to popular music instead. Humans have evolved very little and music/art has evolved so much that only a few elite educated people can keep up. I-IV-V-I works great in popular music, as do meaningful English lyrics. Serialism, Tone rows, and other modern classical elements... not so much.
I suppose I better add that my last statement above referred to U.S. Declaration of Independence, otherwise I'll get bashed for blatant chauvinism. The Constitution says:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Similar rights for people - or human beings - have been formulated in the the English Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights et al.
Nowhere does it mention "musicians," nor steel workers, doctors, geologists, etc., etc., etc. Musicians do, of course, have rights such as pertain to their workplace and profession in addition to their human rights.
Nevertheless, it follows that there is no specific "right" to pursue classical music, for performer or listener, beyond that which refers to the pursuit of individual happiness.
I was thus referring to the "unwritten" pretense that life without - for the purposes of this debate - classical music is basically worthless. Such thinking is understandable coming from a musician, yet holds no empirical merit. Being a musician is, in essence, merely a vocational choice, and not an activity provided protected status like public rhetoric or religious ministry.
However, it may please Mr. Wheeler that Nietzsche was against the codification of basic human rights.
Mr. Wheeler,
I was referring to your following comment, which it seems you have forgotten writing:
@ Ms. Vitsnokskaya:
"Without music, life would be a mistake."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Perhaps you are looking for the pact in the wrong place or by the wrong means. Unwritten, it is deep in our culture, hidden from the cynic and the malcontent. Many pursue the art of music for the challenge it holds and the reward it gives. Professionally, many are called, but few are chosen. But you, as well as all who choose, may enjoy the fruits of our labor. You will not depart unnourished or unrewarded.
Your "quote" of Bill Gates is false. That is a fact you can actually check on Google.
Posted by Larry Wheeler from Houston, TX | October 20, 2012 12:17 AM
Have a good day likewise.
I was referring to your comment:
Posted by Larry Wheeler from Houston, TX | October 20, 2012 12:17 AM
Have a good day likewise.
" Obviously, much of the funds raised for that project could have been raised to fund the orchestra instead." This reveals a lack of understanding of fund raising. A donor -- usually a large corporation -- who gives to a building project often has no interest in funding operating expenses. An organization cannot ask a donor for money for a certain purpose and then use it for something else -- it's illegal.
In response to Mr. Wheeler, congratulations on remaining in the black for 18 years. That is a significant accomplishment and you should be proud.
"If you don't have it, don't spend it" may work for your youth orchestra. It does not work for a professional symphony with a legally binding Musicians Union contract, usually with negotiated pay increases projecting out 3-5 years. Professional orchestras have to make many such long-term financial commitments, yet year by year ticket sales and fund raising can fluctuate widely, sometimes due to factors completely outside the organization's control. The stock market crash of 2009 is an extreme example of this. Orchestras are still reeling from the effect of this -- heck, American society in general is. People are more fear-based, less confident, less inclined to be generous or part with disposable income.
And while one could wish that every board member in the world were willing to fall on their sword and double or triple their pledge to fill a funding gap, that is unrealistic when they are already giving generously.
Mr. Buelow, there is no lack of understanding about fundraising. Donors can be led in many directions. It is up to management to set the priorities. While misleading donors may not be illegal, it is certainly immoral. If the survival of the orchestra is at stake, what good is a renovated lobby? A beautiful lobby produces no music, which is the primary function and mission of an orchestra.
Setting limits on spending works for youth orchestras, professional orchestras, and governments. An endowment serves the purpose of covering shortfalls in rough times and then should be rebuilt in good times. I find it disingenuous for these endowments to be built on the premise of "ensuring the artistic future of the orchestra," and then see an unwillingness to use it for its intended purpose when needed. As for projected salaries and expenses, 3-5 years is sufficient time to plan ahead, and also to negotiate those dreaded union contracts. Many orchestras are top-heavy with administrative staff. With so many, either they are not very effective at fund-raising and creating performances, or their very cost is contributing to the deficits.
While contributing money is certainly a part, not many individual board members can personally fill a funding gap, and I did not suggest they do so. But some can recruit new board members, or help gain access to grants and foundations. As with an orchestra, working together is the key to success. And yes, that is their part of the process.
Mr. Wheeler, the comment about lack of understanding of fund raising referred to another person's comment. You can't take a grant given for the specific purpose of a building renovation and use it to pay musicians. And I promise you, there are fewer and fewer corporations and foundations out there who want to give large operating grants, year in, year out. Ask any professional fund raiser.
If we want to talk about the strangeness of engaging in a major hall renovation while one's operating business model is completely failing, I would agree that that demonstrates very odd institutional priorities, to say the least.
As for your comment about setting limits on spending, that's all fine. That's what a budget is for. The problem with most orchestras isn't spending -- it's revenue. It's when the revenue falls far short but the costs are fixed that the orchestra is in trouble.
And we agree about one thing. Marketing endowments as being able to fill the gap when times are bad is disingenuous. The crash of 2009 showed that: just when the endowments were needed most, their value plummeted and they weren't there for those orchestras.
You may or may not be right about some orchestras being top heavy with staff. Mine certainly isn't. I have two full time employees and we work to the point of exhaustion.
Actually, you did suggest that board members should be personally willing to fund a budget gap. As the president recently said, "read the transcript."
Mr Nilsson, it does not appear from public statement that musicians from either Minnesota orchestras deny the financial difficulties of their orgnaizations but both have valid questions and concerns about the wisdom of their managements decisions. If the MO were to succeeed with their full salary cuts they would change from an organization that spends 48% the budget on musicians to about 30% on the musicians and 70% running the Orchestra. When the product of the organization is the music, something is wrong with that imbalance. To close the entire deficit across just the musician costs is wrong.
Mr. Buelow, I have checked the transcript (without Candy's help) and see three places where I mention the financial responsibility of orchestra board members:
1. That leaves the management and the board. It is their job to arrange concerts, sell tickets, give money, or get money.
2. The basic issue is that the musicians in the Twin Cities have given their audiences a musical castle, and now, their boards don't want to pay the rent.
3. As any director of a non-profit will tell you, the function of any board member is, simply: Give money, get money, or get off the board.
If I have overlooked another place, please inform me, but I do not find where I suggested that "board members should be personally willing to fund a budget gap." Personally covering a budget gap is not within the means of any but the very wealthiest of board members, and even then is not their sole responsibility. To reiterate, the function of a board member is manifold, covering a wide range of commitments and responsibilities. That includes deciding on renovations, capital campaigns, and use of endowments.
The administratively top-heavy orchestra in question is the Chicago Symphony, with as many listed as they have orchestra personnel.
"Any shortfall comes out of my pocket, so, I literally put my money where my mouth is. I believe any committed board member should be willing to do the same."
As they say in the Senate, allow me to clarify my remarks. The shortfall part refers to myself, since I founded the organization. I do believe committed board members should also "put their money where their mouth is." This can and should be a group effort. As such, I should have written "members." I can see how that could be misconstrued. Thanks.
Another orchestra that is top-heavy with management is Atlanta, with 74 administrative staff for (now) 88 musicians. To help cover a $5.2 million deficit, each musician took an average pay cut of $20,000 per year. Five administrators took a 6% cut. That hardly seems fair or equitable.
As a 26-year patron and regular donor to the Orchestra, I wish to comment on the failure of the Board and the Orchestra's president, Michael Henson, in this situation. The many donors to the Orchestra were never approached by the administration with the idea that "the Orchestra is in deep and immediate trouble, and without an increase in donations for operations, we'll have to take drastic action." This is a disaster in the making. Great orchestras have never been sustained by ticket sales; the have always been dependent on philanthropy. The contract proposed by the administration will bring the Orchestra down from being one of the best in the nation to third tier status. I have watched over the years as the Orchestra has achieved their present high status on the national and world stages. They cannot maintain this status with high turnover among the players; it takes years to build their quality as an ensemble. You cannot improve the enthusiasm for classical music by providing a third-rate product. The players must be paid to do their jobs. The Board is responsibile for raising the money and ensuring the best possible product. They have so far failed in the first task and threaten to fail in the second, by destroying the fabric of the Orchestra. Mr Henson, Mr Campbell, and Mr Davis should be replaced. Continuing on the present course will result in the loss of my patronage and donations, and likely that of many others.
In the flurry of comments and in my concentration on the situation of the Minnesota Orchestra, I missed the statement of Mr Nilsson's relationship to the Board of the SPCO. That should have been stated at the top of the article, where he is described as "an attorney," (possibly along with the fact that his sister is a member of the Board of Directors.) I am also a patron & donor to the SPCO, although not as active as I am with the MO. The SPCO's situation is perhaps even more tragic than that of the MO. The Board is proposing a pay cut of 33% for the current players, & actively encouraging the players with the longest tenure to leave. In addition, they propose an even lower minimum salary for new players. I would be among the first to say that public school teachers are underpaid, but it is ludicrous to suggest that graduates of Juilliard should be paid $50,000, while graduates of Minnesota state colleges should get $40,000 for teaching band. This proposal would change the SPCO from a "destination" site, the pinnacle of an artist's career, to a "farm team;" a place for conservatory grads who failed to get a good job in their first few auditions to hone their skills for a few years before moving on to a "real" professional orchestra. This is a disastrous proposal, and the SPCO Board should be ashamed.
Thank you, Mr. Kooiker, for sharing your perspective as a donor.
My impression is that the MO management simply became obsessed with building a $5o million lobby and ignored the responsibility of maintaining a world class orchestra. Perhaps the board can reassess their priorities.
Get rid of Henson, he has totally blown it. I moved here two years from NYC, and was apprehensive, however my classical music friends all said "you are so lucky to get to be able to hear the Minnesota Orchestra every week. They're the best in the world right now." And so that first winter, which was freezing cold, a bad winter even for the hardy Minnesotans, I ran every week to the Minnesota Orchestra and heard the best classical music I've ever heard. And I thought I had finally beat the system, didn't have to live in Chicago, or NY or Berlin to hear world class music. Could live in Minneapolis and hear the Minnesota Orchestra which was ten minutes from my apartment. I was a bit nervous though, I would look around and think, "there should be a lot more people at this concert considering the high level of playing. It didn't seem like the board was doing enough to promote this genius ensemble. I would talk about the symphony all of the time, and no one I knew here went to hear the orchestra at all, and I found that troubling and a bit ominous. It seemed like they were not appreciated. probably because classical music has become so marginalized for various reasons. But for Henson and the board to run this world class institution into the ground is beyond scandalous. Their job is to be a steward of this precious, special group, not destroy it and tell these players that they're dispensable.
Mr. Nilsson. First, I would like to thank you for writing a well thought out article that conveys an appreciation of the forces pulling all parties in an orchestral organization. As a former violinist, and now recent grad in Finance, I have given this subject a lot of thought. I want to offer a solution of my own which resonates with several of the points that you have already made.
Your statement, "Today, far more "people with money" are inspired to give to charities meeting human needs than are willing to pay top-flight classical music performers year after year." This statement brings out several points, but one of which is that the market place is competitive and donors think of orchestras as a luxury good, and have placed the well being of humans (and their ability to contribute to economies, I would assume) as being more important. I have a hard time disagreeing with the donors on this, as it is a very pragmatic action to take. Obviously, this does leave orchestra coffers feeling light.
Secondly, your comment regarding musicians bargaining against profits. I think it is vital for anyone wanting to offer a solution for orchestras must understand that orchestras have a negative valuation based on cashfow from operations, which is what fundamentally forces them to turn to donations from altruistic (or tax avoiding) individuals, not worried about having any return on their investment except through a hopefully more vibrant local economy.
To be continued in 2nd comment.
Given the operating landscape described in my first comment, I offer this solution:
Build an investment management fund (hedge fund) into the organization. A fund which invests in conservative investments on behalf of its investors would allow the orchestra multiple strategic opportunities.
By branching out of the world of altruism and aligning the orchestra's wants, money, with the broader market's wants, again money, an orchestra would open itself up to a potentially huge new market. The orchestra itself my be a disaster in terms of operating cash flow, but the equity and debt markets are not. By allowing patrons of the orchestra to garner a return by investing THROUGH the orchestra, and allowing the orchestra to garner a return from commissions on investments, we have now created a win-win situation.
This is fundamentally different than the Endowment approach which requires a large sum of money gifted to and owned by the orchestra, where the donor gets very little and the orchestra gets much more (but not seemingly not enough). By owning an investment fund, the orchestra can have a potentially much larger sum of money that it doesn't own, but under its command, and simply make money on the transactions and performance of the funds.
The demanding proportion of cash is in retirement funds and liquidity needs for businesses. By offering a holding place for both of these vehicles, an orchestra would be more well suited to operating in a self interested economy.
This will not be popular, but here is a question: If the market cannot afford to pay the musicians what they are worth, how is it able to pay the top arts management what they are worth?
I am certainly not saying that those at the top of arts management are overpaid. And in fact I feel strongly that those in middle and lower management are seriously underpaid.
But if musicians are being asked to take 20,30,40 and even 50 percent pay cuts, are CEOs, Controllers, operations managers etc. being asked to take comparable cuts?
1. We shouldn’t have to rely on the largesse of a few rich people to fund social needs. That is what government should be for.
2. I agree with him here, music education is key. The media are partly to blame for assigning such importance to passive TV watching. Instead, they should promote the value of live arts events.
3. His next point is very difficult. People have more choices than even twenty years ago. To expect subscriptions to rise is wishful thinking at best and dangerous planning at worst. His next point about increasing giving is not workable since real incomes have risen so slowly (if at all) in the last few decades.
4. His point of “trying new things” means he doesn’t value orchestral music - the product must change to make it palatable to the masses. Why is he on the board if he is less than happy with the “product”? His lack of enthusiasm is palpable. My solution: fire the incompetent “managers” who succeed in raising money for more administration before musicians. Time and again musicians have seen their number of services reduced, pay adjusted downward, etc. only to find yet another high-priced arts manager has been hired to cope with a bloated staff clueless as to what they are trying to “sell.”
I agree with Mr. Nilsson that educating children about classical music is key. We can look to Venezuela's youth orchestras were established about 30 years ago and have trained 300,000 musicians -- one of whom--Gustavo Dudamel-- grew up to lead first his country's program and then the Los Angeles Philharmonic.
Children in Venezuela are given free instruments and lessons. The program has not only produced a love for music and a continuing entry of new musicians into the field, but has diverted children who might have become criminals by offering music as a better alternative.
America could easily emulate this program instead of right-wingedly saving money by cutting arts funding from the public schools.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
