quote:

If they sink, that's life, folks. Obviously they either lack popularity for the entertainment dollar or sound fiscal management (or a combination of both.)You would never see corporations bailing out the Blue Jackets or Destroyers if they were in a similar situation. You arts types think you're above it all, especially when it comes to money. Looks like the free ride may be over.

This quote is one of the comments from the latest story regarding the Columbus Symphony (the top story on the MA home page as of this posting). While this person's views are clearly in the minority as far as the responses go, I find them very disturbing nonetheless. I think the most upsetting part of the comment is "You arts types think you're above it all, especially when it comes to money." The question that comes to my mind when I read this comment is how do we as artist really regard money. I've often said that if I could play full time for free and still eat on a regular basis, I would do it. I know that we can't ignore the realities of life. We all need to earn money to achieve stability, but does being an artist lend itself to a feeling of entitlement? I don't think so, but I wanted to get everone's take.

Maybe if we just leverage our endowments to the max and screw over all of our patrons and donors the fed will bail us out like Bear Stearns?

I have been having this very discussion with colleagues of mine on another forum. It's an issue that I think is so important for all of us to think about. These were my thoughts...

An increase in salaries of many orchestras in America have happened more rapidly in the past 20-30 years than development departments can keep up with. A colleague made a comment saying that it is the community that decides what kind of orchestra they should enjoy and how much it should get paid. I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, and you hear what the community has to say with the number of empty seats and the yearly budget deficit.

I have been able to discuss these issues with many of my colleagues, all who have brought many valid reasons to the table to counter my position that many major American orchestras are paying unrealistic salaries, and have been (to a certain extent) forced to do it. Not one person, however, addressed the lack of a sustainable source of income, when the majority of an orchestra's budget is covered by donations.

It's a simple matter of supply and demand. The demand has never increased for the product we offer. If anything, it has decreased, yet more and more money is spent to produce it every year. I understand the mindset that in order to keep the high artistic level of an orchestra it has to offer competitive salaries; however, things like the economy (cost of living) of the community are not taken into account during contract negotiations. Nor is the fact that most of the budget (which keeps increasing every year) is not covered by any form of a secure revenue source.

This not to say that it is an issue everywhere. There are certain cities that will be able to sustain an orchestra of a major size with few problems. There are also plenty of regional orchestras that will be OK because there might be a clearer idea of the relevance of the ensemble to its community and a proper financial starting point in which that mindset is realistic.

What is happening at the Columbus Symphony Orchestra is very unfortunate, but it seems to be the result of the points I raise. There have been many other orchestras, some smaller and some larger, that have had to file for bankruptcy, cancel a season or fold completely because the musicians (represented by the AFM) would not concede to perhaps a more realistic budget.

This is not me saying that orchestral musicians are money-hungry and evil, not at all; but the notion of a tenured orchestral musician earning a six-figure income was in many instances an ill-conceived one, brought on by the incredible growth of the AFM this past century. And not just the AFM, but all across the AFL-CIO. The United Auto Workers is a prime example.

So what does this all mean for us? It's a question I am always struggling with for myself. It is forcing me to think about what my profession will (need to) become in the future. The answer is different for each person, and I hope that more and more musicians, especially in my generation (early twenties), keep this in mind as they venture into a whirlwind musical life.

I must reply to this one. In 1986, the Columbus Symphony base salary was around $26,000. If you consider the cost of inflation over those 22 years, we are basically making the same salary we were in 1986. (See http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ and click on "Inflation calculator"). I don't think we are asking for too much money. Besides the fact that the other two major cities in this state, who are actually declining in population and income while we are rising, can maintain their orchestras at a much higher level. I don't have the answers either but gutting the orchestra isn't one of them.

My line of thinking is similar to wwgirl's.

I live in Indiana now, but I went to school at Ohio State. While in college, I attended the Columbus Symphony concerts every single weekend. (Back then, student tickets were six bucks for any seat in the house!) Unfortunately, the Ohio Theatre is too large. I think it has something like 3000 seats. Every concert looked empty, even though we may have had 1500-2000 visitors to every show!

But what shocks me most is how similar the two cities of Columbus and Indianapolis are. They're almost exactly the same in size, geography, arts culture, demographics, etc. Yet the Columbus Symphony struggles to dig up 12 million and wants to drop to 9. But the Indianapolis Symphony runs regularly at 27 million!

I think this is a massive failure of fund development and financial management. And it's a royal shame that they're cutting so many musicians while the staff's jobs seem secure.

I too live in Indy after having lived for nearly two decades in Ohio.

In comparing Columbus and Indianapolis, and Ohio and Indiana generally, one should not underestimate the differences in the business climate and their effects on arts funding. Though Indiana and Ohio are neighboring Midwest states, Indiana has a far superior business climate. The population here is less unionized, a little more educated, a little younger. There is less of an attitude of entitlement here than in Ohio. Perhaps most important, the total tax burden in Indiana is much, much lower than in Ohio. In Ohio, someone like me would face a state/local income-tax burden of about 11%; sales tax (for everyone) of about 6%; and very high property taxes. In Indiana, I pay about the same in sales tax, less in property tax on a similarly valued home and only about 3% in state/local income taxes. For senior executives, entrepreneurs and wealthy retirees, many of whom have some ability to migrate to more hospitable business and tax environments, Ohio's high taxes are repelling. So, the types of people and companies that are most likely to support the arts are leaving Ohio to a much greater degree than they are leaving Indiana. In fact, Indiana has attracted many large employers in recent years. It's an excellent state in which to do business.

Actually, the other two major cities in Ohio are not able to maintain their orchestras. There are large deficits in Cincinnati, and Cleveland was recently faced with a situation very similar to Columbus. They have created a turnaround plan where they are now building a donor base in other cities such as Miami and Vienna where they have residencies every year. The Columbus Symphony and most other orchestras unfortunately don't have enough worldwide visibility to have a similar game plan.

The fact that the salary has remained the same when you consider inflation should make sense. But why should you receive an increase for any other reason if the city cannot support it? The predicament in Columbus is now worldwide news, and still no one has stepped up to the plate with money. That should tell you something.

There are some good points made in this thread.

I agree with Tired Arms about the "salary wars" at the top. They might very well push some orchestras over the edge. But Columbus wasnt making the big bucks. Yes, an orchestra has to reflect the community. Based on their budget, my guess is that they have.

I am noticing a disturbing trend among lower-tier orchestras: "rightsizing" for convenience sake. I find it impossible to believe that a growing city like Shreveport cant raise a paltry sum to keep an orchestra. They CAN, they just arent doing it. There is a lot of prestige in being on a symphony board, but it comes with lots of work. In many cases, I am seeing that a few board members want the first but not the latter.

Maybe I an wrong, but in reading comments from various officials in the past year from orchestras like Jacksonville, Columbus and Shreveport, I get the feeling that the bigshots simply do not WANT a good orchestra. They want a night-time orchestra. It would sure be a lot easier for them, and they get out of it exactly what they want. Let's face it, if Shreveport cuts their fulltime players's salaries by 75%, the executive director is still gonna keep his/her salary right where it is.

In the dozens of articles I have read about those three orchestras, not once have I seen any official mention development, marketing or any of their own shortcomings. And in all three, the officials have been openly hostile and unsympathetic to the musicians.

"Supply and demand" doesnt always apply to non-profits. I agree it should to an extent, but there are other factors, and no orchestra survives without development and fundraising.

I propose an incentive program: tie the salaries of the suits in with the salaries of the players. If the executive director of Shreveport is making 100k, he/she now makes 25K. They would be raising wheelbarrows full of money.

I couldn't agree with you more, Cygnus. It is true that there are many boards that just don't want to be bothered with growing their orchestra, but just having something to chat with their friends about. Regarding communities, I think that's more difficult to asses if you are not there living in the city, making the calls, doing the schmoozing, and experiencing the feedback yourself. I try not to slam administrations as hard in my mind because of that. Being the capital, Columbus is more of a government town, and we all know where the government stands with regards to the arts.

quote:

Originally posted by Tired Arms:
Being the capital, Columbus is more of a government town, and we all know where the government stands with regards to the arts.

It also has an Uber-university and lots of corporate headquarters, something that usually goes hand-in hand with successful arts organizations. And it also has a sizable and growing metro population that will reach 2 million soon. Lots of moola in the suburbs.

I do agree, from an outsiders point of reference I dont know the makeup or structure of the community. I can only go by other communities of similiar size and resources and compare. Based on that comparision, they should in theory be able to support an orchestra of that budget. All the pieces have to fit together in order for that to happen, and from an outsiders POV, it doesnt appear to be the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Cygnus:

I am noticing a disturbing trend among lower-tier orchestras: "rightsizing" for convenience sake. I find it impossible to believe that a growing city like Shreveport cant raise a paltry sum to keep an orchestra. They CAN, they just arent doing it. There is a lot of prestige in being on a symphony board, but it comes with lots of work. In many cases, I am seeing that a few board members want the first but not the latter.

This describes the board in Shreveport to a T. There have been members expressing the sentiment of cutting all positions to per-service for years. They are of the opinion that the students from the small local college would do just as well in the orchestra, and the orchestra has no need to hire full-time musicians. With all due respect to these students, they are, as a general rule, absolutely nowhere near the same level of playing as the members of the SSO.

Shreveport has seen better days, but I firmly believe the city has the finances at least to sustain its orchestra at its current level, if not more. The problem lies in board members who are concerned with their prestige but not with their duties, who cannot tell the difference between an amateur and profession orchestra, and who are ABSOLUTELY committed to hacking away at the orchestra. Why else would they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on independent consultants, and then chosen not to follow their advice?

I have to chime in here. If an orchestra's salary should reflect the community than we in the Charlotte Symphony should be making three times what we do! Come take a look around Charlotte- go to Southpark Mall and shop at Hermes and Tiffanys and Neiman Marcus.... I was just on a visit to Columbus and believe me there's money there. An argument I heard was that some say that Ohio can't support three orchestras- like people are regularly going to drive to Cincinnati or Cleveland just to hear a symphony concert!
I don't think it's unreasonable for orchestral musicians to expect to earn what other highly-skilled professionals earn. And that means more than just keeping up with inflation. It is management's job to secure funds (through whatever means) and take care of their employees. It's disgusting to see that there has been no talk of development or marketing in Columbus.
The Charlotte Symphony has just hired a new Executive Director (Jonathan Martin from Cleveland) and we are excited and hopeful that he will shake things up. Unfortunately for us Charlotte has an umbrella-like Arts and Science Council that doesn't like to support the big arts companies. Hopefully he will get that group to see that Charlotte needs a strong orchestral organization and we will be able to stay off the ever-growing list of groups that are down sizing just to stay afloat.

smackemup, I will not comment about your specific orchestra as I am not familiar enough with that situation, but your comments are a perfect example of a union mindset, and the sense of entitlement that monkeychild describes in the initial post of this thread.

A highly-skilled professional may be paid well for a desirable service they provide, or to help create a product that is desirable. The keyword here is desirable - in demand. You are basically saying that if there is money in a community, it should go to you. You are saying that more people, especially rich people, should appreciate classical music more so you can be paid well. Why should you tell other people how much you are worth? It is the consumer that ends up deciding that, as with any product or service. And the consumer in our case is both the ticket buyer and the donor. Management should secure funds by whatever means? And if they can't? You strike? Because classical music played by a group of "full-time" paid professionals should be desirable? What successful business runs this way? And what other non-profit organization functions with a work force represented by a very strong trade union?

quote:

Originally posted by Tired Arms:
smackemup, Management should secure funds by whatever means? And if they can't? You strike? ?

You fire the management.

As I have said many times here: They work for US, not vice-versa. Well, at least in theory. If the Stones dont like their management, they fire them. I dont see the difference, it is our product that people pay for, or donate to. Somehow, this got turned around. We dont work for a symphony, we ARE the symphony.

Personally, all I can ask for is that the suits do their job. If they do and the community dictates that it only wants to support the orchestra to an extent, so be it. I can accept that or move, or try another profession. The problem is that IMO many of the suits in failing orchestras AREN'T doing their jobs.

There have to be SOME reasonable musicians SOMEWHERE. Yet, in any failing orchestra I have come across, I have yet to find one that says "The community is unwilling to support us to a fulltime extent". Instead, they say " The development and marketing is all messed up, the CEO is hostile, and the Board prez just wants it to be a small orchestra etc"..

There has to be some truth in that. I'm sure its a combination of many things, but certainly development, "director of special gifts" etc is the biggie, and I've yet to find one single suit to address this. More and more, orchestras seemed structured like corporations where CEOs literally get bonuses for firing people.

As "pros", we deserve nothing, except for competent employees. If we have that we might have a fighting chance.

quote:

Originally posted by Cygnus:
They work for US, not vice-versa.

How about working for yourself then?

You chose the management by choosing to audition for and play in the orchestra.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist or maybe I'm being realistic, but I'd rather create a life for myself that is creative and secure, and not in the hands of management that I never wanted representing me in the first place.

They certainly don't teach that in conservatory, now do they?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: flyingtom,

That is one of the silliest things I have heard. You don't always get to choose your management! After all, the turn over rate for managers is so fast, you can't keep track of who is running a place many times. I agree with Cynus, Fire the management, and while they are at it, lose the board-who seems to be sitting on their collective hands.

I actually don't think it's silly at all. It sounds silly to you because you can't fathom doing anything else with your talents, like most symphony players and conservatory students.

If you fire the management, then what? Are you prepared to make the calls and do the marketing and PR yourself?

The system ain't gonna change. When you have a not-for-profit, you're gonna have to have a board. And it's gonna have to be made up of wealthy people, and they're most likely not going to be musicians. That's unfortunately the law, and yes, that law doesn't make sense for a symphony orchestra... so then why put your livelihood in the hands of a situation that may or may not fail?

quote:

Originally posted by Tired Arms:


"so then why put your livelihood in the hands of a situation that may or may not fail?

"

Dear Tired Arms:

The answer to this is quite simple. Some of us have dedicated our whole adult lives an art form. It may not work out for some. Which makes me wonder about your very simpleton remark.

I assume that Tired Arms is a conductor or conductor wannabee. That would explain a LOT!

Agreed, Tired Arms is a conductor. How sad that every musician and every orchestra is lumped together in his/her mind. There are some really well run groups out there, tight managements with super boards.