http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI...315/NEWS01/803150330

The information is based on a letter from management, OPUS said, and will result in all 24 full-time positions, or core players, being converted to per-service positions. The effect, according to the musicians, would be a 75 percent decrease in annual salary of $12,683 per musician to $3,123.

A statement from the symphony board says the symphony is moving to a per-service structure instead of a salary structure and calls OPUS' estimation of a 75 percent salary cut misleading. The new contract will not be implemented Sunday, it says.

...

"Musicians will actually receive a 25 percent increase in hourly rates over three years with the musicians having more time to perform at other venues," board President Margaret Elrod says in the statement.

(Italics mine)

...

"More time to perform at other venues." Well, now that you put it like that...

It's like dominoes. Jacksonville, Columbus, now Shreveport....

It makes you wonder who's next for the chopping block.

The management has put a plea up on the orchestra website asking the "Musicians and community
to embrace [the] Board's commitment to fiscal responsibility." http://www.shreveportsymphony.com/

I have to wonder also: if the full time musicians get cut to per service, what else gets cut besides their salaries? School programs? Community outreach concerts? Radio Broadcasts? etc., etc. All of these programs are listed on their website. It seems that it will become much harder to do all of these activities without a core group of musicians.

Yes, I've been following the Columbus posts from here in Shreveport-all you need to do is change the names, all the other stuff is the same. Except here our tickets sales have increased the past few years,and the symphony's financial situation is not bad. The economy is good here, and there are numerous people awash in oil money right now, but the board feels it's necessary to cut the budget to what it was 25 years ago.

But, as they say, we will have "more time to perform in other venues". We of course are playing all the available extra gigs already, because even with our low cost of living here $12,693 doesn't go very far. Obviously, none of us moved to Shreveport to be free-lance musicians.


You can read our side of the story at the website for OPUS (Orchestra Players United of Shreveport)at www.shreveportmusicians.org, which we will try to be updating regularly.

quote:

The effect, according to the musicians, would be a 75 percent decrease in annual salary of $12,683 per musician to $3,123.

$12,683 was the Shreveport Symphony salary in 1991/1992. Reducing the salary to $3,123 effectively brings Shreveport back in time to the pre-Desegregation Era. Who knows where Shreveport will stop? Reconstruction Era salaries? Antebellum? Kill off the heart of the symphony, and THE SOUTH (you know what I mean) will rise again.

sorry, that's www.shreveportmusicians.org

This is a controversial statement I know, but I think it has to be said for the purpose of discussion:

Maybe, just maybe, there isn't a viable economic scenario for a full-time symphony orchestra in Shreveport anymore. Of course it is a tough issue to consider when jobs and careers are at stake but I do wonder whether in the times of instant downloads, DVDs etc whether a city of just over 200K inhabitants can realistically sustain this orchestra in its current set-up.

The cultural scene has changed so much over the past decade and perhaps it is more than time that orchestras in smaller cities should look to a far more flexible format contractually in order to sustain a viable financial future for classical music?

Surely it is better to have a "per service" set-up - obviously preferably with better terms currently on offer - which can ensure the long-term future of some form of classical music making, rather than blindly following the status quo waving the tattered union flag and ending up as another Florida Philharmonic sunk with piles of unresolvable debt and ultimately NO work AT ALL for the musicians.

quote:

Maybe, just maybe, there isn't a viable economic scenario for a full-time symphony orchestra in Shreveport anymore.

It might be controversial, but it's a very good question to ask. I think whenever management asks for major concessions at the table or threatens to impose major cuts which substantially change the nature of the organization, it's precisely the question which must be asked.

Except that I'd frame it directly to them: "do you want a high-quality symphony orchestra in your community?".

If the answer is "no", then the best thing to do is to pull the plug and start over with those people who DO want a symphony orchestra in the community, and have the energy, skills, and dedication to make that a reality.

quote:

A representative of the Shreveport Symphony Orchestra (SSO) Board, the Shreveport Symphony administration and legal counsel met with representatives for the Orchestra Players United of Shreveport (O.P.U.S.) and Local 116 Shreveport American Federation of Musicians (AFM) this afternoon (March 20, 2008). “It was a very productive discussion,” said Symphony Board Dick Bremer, Symphony Vice-President. Another meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 2 p.m. We are looking forward to making and receiving proposals that we hope will move us closer to final negotiations with the Shreveport Symphony Orchestra musicians.

The above quote is from the Shreveport Symphony home page.

At least the musicians and management are getting the ball rolling quickly when it comes to negotiations. I also think that the article from today's Shreveport Times is much more balanced than what the Columbus Dispatch has been printing.

[/quote]If the answer is "no", then the best thing to do is to pull the plug and start over with those people who DO want a symphony orchestra in the community, and have the energy, skills, and dedication to make that a reality.[/quote]

Interestingly enough, in virtually every city where an orchestra went bankrupt, another was started soon after -- San Diego, Kansas City, Colorado Springs, Honolulu and Alabama are some who come to mind.

Let me correct a few things:
The population of the MSA we serve in Shreveport is approximately 400,000.
There are several errors in the Times article, which shouldn't surprise anyone who has tried to explain these complex issues to an editorial board. The accumulated deficit for 6 years (according to the SSO's own information) is $219,524, not $500,000 as the Times reported. The SSO is projecting a surplus for this season of $124,000. The SSO has no bank debt. We are not on the verge of bankruptcy. Making these cuts is is just something the Board and management want to do. If they would put as much time and energy into raising money as they are to downsizing us, we'd be fine.

To respond to Maestrolover:

This situation is MUCH more clear-cut than a lot of other similar situations. It's completely clear that the board of directors of the SSO is not interested enough to maintain an quality orchestra. They are ignorant about quality (like most non-musicians), and are just happy having an orchestra so they can socialize with their rich friends. I honestly don't think they even realize how bad they are making themselves look by the facts and figures (and reasons) they give.

But I do agree with you that the symphony orchestra organizational model needs a revamp for exactly these reasons. Unfortunately, I believe that the sentiments of this particular board represents the sentiments of many all over this country. I don't believe it's a hopeless situation, but it takes work... from ALL sides (including the government, but that's a whole other can of worms that can be a thread by itself).

Henry Fogel writes the following in an article on polyphonic.org:

"The idea that an orchestra is a professional organization, perhaps closer in concept to a law firm than to a manufacturing plant, still has a long way to go to gain acceptance, not only from management, but from musicians as well. Many musicians are more comfortable not participating in the decision-making processes. It is, after all, easier to criticize decisions that one did not participate in making, and one can comfortably avoid the difficulties of responsibility by being on the outside. But is it healthy?"

I always try to keep from criticizing management too harshly because of the reasons Fogel describes. I'm not there on the phone with potential donors, or writing grants, or doing the schmoozing, or creating marketing materials with the extremely limited budget that most symphony marketing departments have and the extreme limitations on marketing that most collective bargaining agreements pose. But a $12,000/year orchestra in a thriving city like Shreveport? That's really not a far fetched thing to expect enough viable interest in, but maybe musicians in general should take a little bit of responsibility for their own situation and step up to the plate with some solutions, or at least some ideas. The musicians are experts at their job, but board members are not. They're just like you and me... except with a little more pocket change. Sometimes they need some help... and a kick in the butt.

quote:

If they would put as much time and energy into raising money as they are to downsizing us, we'd be fine.

Exactly - downsizing is the easy way out, no matter how much they wring their hands and cry "woe is me!".

quote:

Originally posted by Maestrolover:

Maybe, just maybe, there isn't a viable economic scenario for a full-time symphony orchestra in Shreveport anymore.

At the risk of exposing my naivety (as well as side-tracking the conversation), I'd like to know what are we saying when we talk about a "full-time orchestra." In combing over the Shreveport Symphony site, I noticed that they only have 8 subscription series concerts plus another 2 special events. I'm well aware that what is NOT listed are numerous outreach and educational concerts. But even with these unlisted concerts added in, can this orchestra still be considered "full-time?" I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers with this post. I'm asking simply out of ignorance and curiosity. I guess in the end I want to know what the full scope of the core/salaried musicians' jobs are. At the end of the season how much playing has been done with the orchestra?

I'd also like to note that while I ask this question for my own edification, I also think it's relevant to the case of the musicians in Shreveport. Playing the devil's advocate, if I were management, I'd want to know how much work the musicians are doing to deserve a salary and to be called "full-time." And yes I know a lot of work goes on outside the concert hall too. I'm just trying to see the big picture.

If someone with more experience can chime in here, please do, but I believe that the only essential difference between full-time and per-service is that full-time earns a salary. So the full-time musician is available for any services that management schedules, within the limits set out in the contract (e.g. no services on Monday, no more than x number of services per week or day, nothing before 9 AM or after 11 PM, or whatever the specifics might be).

I was only in Shreveport for one season a couple years ago, so maybe someone else (Brizale?) could describe the current season better. But at the time, we played 8 Masterworks concerts, plus a 5-concert chamber series that featured either a "reduced" chamber orchestra or chamber ensembles formed by principal players. All core members were part of some kind of chamber ensemble, and between these groups, every school in Caddo and Bossier Parish (and sometimes beyond) received a visit. We provided several run-out concerts to neighboring communities, educational full-orchestra youth concerts, a free Martin Luther King Day concert in collaboration with choirs from local churches. We also played for the Shreveport Opera, as well as for the Shreveport Ballet. I know I had some kind of service happening every week, even if it wasn't a major concert that would be advertised to the general public on the website. I realize that the SSO doesn't "look" like it's full time, but it is. Unfortunately, it is impossible to live on the salary, but it is very difficult to get another job besides teaching when you are contractually at that management's beck and call (who were not always great about giving us the required one-month notice for adding or canceling services). As I understand now, the SSO has gotten rid of the in-school chamber ensemble education programs. I believe they also cut the smaller chamber orchestra concert series. If they are moving to 43 services, that works out to 8 or 9 concerts per season, total. The Opera and the Ballet hire the SSO to play for their performances; as salaried musicians we did not get paid any extra for these performances, although I would guess in the future these would be paid at the per-service rate, in addition to the 43 guaranteed services (again, I'm not 100% sure about this).

The musicians are there to work, they are ready to work, and they want to work. It is the board which has decided to shirk its financial responsibilities. They act as if the musicians want money for free, but it is the board who has irresponsibly left the Symphony without money to fund the services. And make no mistake, there IS money in Shreveport. Furthermore, the musicians have gone above and beyond through the years to come up with ideas to promote the orchestra and salve the financial wounds, only to be dismissed and ignored by the board. Conversely, the board only seems able to suggest cuts and miraculously find anonymous donors willing to fund studies and consultants, whose results and ideas the board will ignore unless they suggest making cuts.

I realize that I'm working on my memory of one season, but the rhetoric used by the board now was exactly the same then. To say, as board president Margaret Elrod has stated, that "the musicians [will have] more time to perform in other venues" is insulting and utterly laughable, as if the musicians should thank the board for cutting their wages. And I doubt that the board cares about this, but the decimation of the SSO will have ripple effects in neighboring communities with their own ensembles, such as the Longview Symphony in east Texas, and the South Arkansas Symphony. Many of the players in these groups come from Shreveport. I sincerely hope things work out for the SSO musicians, but the board sure seems hell-bent on destroying the ensemble, even as it gives lip-service to "continuing the mission for years to come."

ulmtriba, your description is very accurate.It is true our schedule is not very busy this year. Our management made the decision to discontinue all our in-school performances this season-all the core members performed in ensembles and it was a pretty extensive program, so eliminating that has eliminated many of our services. The SSO management decided the grant we get from the school board only covered the costs of doing Civic Youth concerts- where all the 5th graders are bussed in for a week of concerts. Of course, there is no direct cost to the SSO when core ensembles are sent out. This philosophy comes from one of the consultants we had, who said we shouldn't play any concerts unless the full cost (however they determined that) is covered. That is also why we haven't played any runouts-we are too expensive for the small communities that used to hire us since the management insists on recouping the "full cost"(plus some hefty administrative fees)
Two seasons ago they eliminated the chamber series, again because they said it "didn't pay for itself". (mainly because they spent too much on advertising)

We used to do lots of outreach concerts in malls,libraries, community centers, etc. that were funded from various sources. But the philosophy of our current staff is to just concentrate on selling the Masterworks Series. As on of them said to one of our musicians once "it's too much trouble to put on concerts".

Going back several years, we were playing 170-180 services a year, and the SSO was doing pretty well then, so I don't think it's a question of the community not being able to support more concerts. As ulmtriba said, we want to work, but the staff doesn't seem to want to.

FUTURE REALITY:

"Any board now must/should be comprised
by 50% (at least) of the players/musicians
of the group itself, period."

Which means musicians need to expand their
professional scope to include administrative
abilities.

A major challenge, indeed, for them.

But it has to happen...

re: the status quo: current board members
(corporate and/or well-meaning monied types)
indeed may have skills, but in and of themselves
cannot see the whole picture.

quote:

Originally posted by MrAtoz:
FUTURE REALITY:

"Any board now must/should be comprised by 50% (at least) of the players/musicians of the group itself, period."

Which means musicians need to expand their professional scope to include administrative abilities.

A major challenge, indeed, for them.

But it has to happen...

re: the status quo: current board members (corporate and/or well-meaning monied types) indeed may have skills, but in and of themselves cannot see the whole picture.

Over the years, musicians have had more of a say in their organizations, starting with the first musicians' strike in Boston in 1923, to the orchestral committees formed against management and union recommendations... all needed, of course, to better the substandard treatment of orchestral musicians. It seems like the trend needs to continue with more initiative taken by the musicians, and more open communication allowed by the management and board.

I'm saddened to hear of the difficult times for the Shreveport Symphony players. I was there for two seasons in another millenium, 1981-83. I can't recall my salary for principal cello, maybe about $12K? My then wife made $7,500 as "full-time" 4th chair cello, if memory serves. If the SSO has financial problems, and it sounds like they don't from the stats cited here, it is not from burgeoning musician salaries.

Play no concerts that aren't fully funded? All we would ever play would be sound tracks for video games, Yanni, and mud wrestling events. Orchestra managers and board members must have good business sense, but following this kind of business wisdom will doom the Shreveport Symphony.

I am not a fan of musicians as board members. We need board members who are interested and able. Musicians may be more interested than poor board members, but we nevertheless bring the abilities and connections of musicians, not business people. While every situation is different, in general I think the risks of coopting of musicians is greater than the benefits of new lines of communication. After all, the need for musician communication with the board is symptomatic of organizational problems for which such communication is often not the solution.

quote:

Originally posted by David Garrett:

I am not a fan of musicians as board members. We need board members who are interested and able. Musicians may be more interested than poor board members, but we nevertheless bring the abilities and connections of musicians, not business people.

It aint rocket surgery.

First off, lets clarify that we are on the same page: being on the board in Shreveport is lightyears from being on the board in LA, Chicago etc. In a place like Shreveport, being on the board assumedly means attending two meetings, one Nutcracker gala and writing a check. I can do that. Err, except for the check.

Realistically, what's there to do that a musician cant do, and judging from the articles, what a musician cant do MUCH BETTER?
We can pick purdy tunes. We know what will sell, what is expensive, what will sound good with a small orchestra, who the good soloists are, blah blah. So, we have the music stuff down.

As far as the money: the board needs to crack the whip. Us orchestra hacks have a whip-cracker, the MD. Even with tenure, he/she can put us in our place in many ways. We had to prove ourselves to get the gig in the first place, but a good MD can make sure we stay on our toes.

Board members can do that with the suits. What's the budget in Shreveport, 1.5-2 mill or so?? The girl scouts could raise that with a good cookie sale. Since tickets and grants will cover 30 percent or more of that, there isnt much to raise. If the suits cant raise it, you fire them and bring in new suits. Whats so hard about that??

Its not splitting the atom. You hire competent people and they do their jobs. If they dont, its like us not getting tenure. You dont keep somebody on who isnt doing their job. If they are, THEN you go to plan B and realize that the community wont support it. But you cant do Plan B unless you do plan A.

I was on an artistic commitee that met with board members of an orchestra. They were some of the least knowledgeable people I have ever met. They were there to hob nob with no other goal in mind. One lady told me that the Concertmaster played the oboe. They had no orchestral business skills, they had no musical interest and they couldnt give a hoot if it was the Berlin Phil or 2 high school kids. Ummmm, I could do better than that, so could just about anyone I know.

quote:

Originally posted by Cygnus:
You dont keep somebody on who isnt doing their job. If they are, THEN you go to plan B and realize that the community wont support it. But you cant do Plan B unless you do plan A.

But honestly how many players would risk their livelihoods by actually admitting that we are to plan B?

I was a regular per service player in the SSO in the 90s and I remember thinking when we went on strike that sure a living wage is great but from what I knew of the numbers, I just didn't see how it would pencil out. But we all just kept pushing for parity and eventually got close to what we wanted. And you know what? The members had to take a 15% pay cut several years later because the group was (purportedly) going bankrupt.

Anecdotally, I am still very good friends with folk in Shreveport who just have no interest in the orchestra. These are relatively cultured and educated people with good jobs. They are the gap that could plug the hole for the orchestra as the aristocracy die off. I just can't wrap my mind around if they would actually respond to better marketing (and where would the orch get the money) or if they are lost for whatever reason (not the type of culture they are looking for) and the days of a full-time orchestra in Shreveport are indeed past. I sure hope the latter is not true because I had some very good times but the pragmatist in me says otherwise.