quote:

Microsoft does not obsess about company deficits or no demand for software product. If there is monetary loss, it is made up somewhere else in the company.

Are you suggesting that Microsoft doesn't have to be concerned with its shareholders?

quote:

Originally posted by TrickySam9:

quote:

What is the real draw of the solists? Do we need a solist for every concert? Couldn't orchestra members do more of the solist slots? Could we see more non-violin and non-piano solists to break things up a bit? What affect would this have on the expense line?

There are wonderful soloists who can be engaged at very affordable fees. From a marketing standpoint, it is actually easier to sell a concert with a soloist than an all-orchestral program. Certainly many orchestras around the country feature their principal players as soloists. There are only a handful of classical "stars" who can sell tickets strictly on the basis of their name/reputation.

I have noticed this, although I don't agree with it or fully understand it. When I go to an orchestra concert, I usually want to hear a particular piece, which is usually the "bigger" piece, most often a symphony. I personally prefer an all orchestral program, which is probably because I'm an orchestral player. I've had this discussion with vocalists who would much rather hear an opera than sit thru a symphony, etc. I like some concertos, but I rarely ever go to hear a soloist in particular, unless it's the instrument I play or the piece is by a particular composer I really like. They honestly don't hold my attention too much. That's just my preference. I also would love to hear more non piano/violin concertos! And although I'd like to hear more orchestral musicians as soloists, most of them probably don't do it often enough to really attract a crowd (except probably the concertmasters), &/or also feel comfortable playing as a soloist as much as someone who does it all the time.

Sometimes, I've noticed that some of the audience has diminished after intermission, which is usually after a big soloist (this is one thing I don't agree with). I can understand that the soloists should get a certain amount to play because it is a type of performance that not everyone can do. However, from what I've read & heard, some of their financial demands can be a little overwhelming & absurd (not always, but sometimes). Just my 2 cents.

quote:

Originally posted by TrickySam9:

quote:

Microsoft does not obsess about company deficits or no demand for software product. If there is monetary loss, it is made up somewhere else in the company.

Are you suggesting that Microsoft doesn't have to be concerned with its shareholders?

Of course, not. That would be idiotic. Maybe I should post what I stated earlier along with what I thought at the time was too obvious to include in the post.

In order to satisfy their primary stakeholders (i.e., the shareholders), Microsoft does not obsess about company deficits or no demand for software product. If there is monetary loss, it is made up somewhere else in the company. The focus (and success) of Microsoft is on innovation/new products, growth, and capturing of market share in emerging markets. In a mature company like Microsoft, this is essential. Holders of Microsoft's Blue Chip stock expect no less. Fortunately, there are many orchestras that have adapted this portion of the corporate business model (minus the shareholder part because orchestras are "non-profits"). Unfortunately, the boards/management of Shreveport, Columbus, and Jacksonville do not.

A couple of comments:

1.)Bear Stearns wasn't rescued or bailed out by the feds to any degree that its shareholders would notice. The company was bought for $2 a share. Shareholders lost billions of dollars.

2.) Professional musicians in general are talented in many ways besides musical performance. However, many never realize these talents yet succeed only marginally, if at all, in the world of musical performance. If more of these people eschewed a musical profession and instead went into a more financially rewarding profession, they themselves would constitute the audience of the future, and the finances of orchestras nationwide would be much better off for having their patronage.

quote:

Originally posted by Marksal:
2.) Professional musicians in general are talented in many ways besides musical performance. However, many never realize these talents yet succeed only marginally, if at all, in the world of musical performance. If more of these people eschewed a musical profession and instead went into a more financially rewarding profession, they themselves would constitute the audience of the future, and the finances of orchestras nationwide would be much better off for having their patronage.

I don't even know what to say to that. What would be considered "succeeding only marginally"? Who are you to tell someone else that they haven't succeeded if they feel fulfilled with their choice of profession, whether or not they're making big bucks, or any bucks at all?

quote:

Originally posted by Marksal:
Bear Stearns wasn't rescued or bailed out by the feds to any degree that its shareholders would notice. The company was bought for $2 a share. Shareholders lost billions of dollars.

I'm sorry, but $30 billion from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a taxpayer-funded bailout, regardless of what Bear Stearns stockholders lost. The claim was made that orchestras are the only businesses that expect donors and taxpayers to bail them out of their bad business decisions. This is demonstrably untrue, and I chose Bear Stearns out of thousands of possible examples. If you don't like that one, take your pick of a) the savings and loan industry, b) nearly every major US airline, or c) every professional sports team known to man.

Tired,
In terms of "succeeding only marginally, if at all," I would say that one need only be familiar with the morale of most struggling freelance musicians to see that most would have been much happier in other, more lucrative, professions than they currently are scraping together a living from music. Probably 90% of the music-performance majors in college or conservatory today should be enjoying music as a passion and hobby while majoring in something else to help them achieve a better future for themselves, which, I believe, will help the arts, too, as these music lovers become the audience and contributors of the future.

Mr. Bergman, yes, the Federal Reserve Board greased the skids for J.P. Morgan Chase to buy Bear Stearns for $2 a share, but it wasn't really a bailout in terms of its effects on Bear Stearns' shareholders and employees. The former have lost billions of dollars, while almost all of the latter will lose their jobs. It was more of an exchange of Treasury debt for mortgage debt, and it allows J. P. Morgan Chase to get Bear's real estate and limit the damage of more "infection" throughout the financial industry. It certainly isn't true that government doesn't bail out businesses, but most of those it does bail out have many thousands of employees and impact the economy infinitely more than would the downfall of a symphony orchestra.

Which is why governments don't bail out symphony orchestras. It just doesn't happen. Governments sometimes help fund individual initiatives or building projects, as they do with countless other businesses. I've never heard of a situation in which a government stepped in to single-handedly save an orchestra from bankruptcy.

Re: the Bear Stearns debate, this is pure semantics, and it isn't really germane to the discussion, so let's drop it. But if you care to, drop "Bear Stearns bailout" into a Google search, and notice that nearly every respectable newspaper in the English-speaking world is using the term.

There are no respectable newspapers in the English-speaking world!

The notion that someone is unsuccesful or mistaken in career choice because they do not make a living therefrom according to someone else's standards is an arrogant and narrow-minded notion.

I was going to respond to Marksal's ridiculous statement, but David Garrett beat me to it. Thank you, David.

quote:

Originally posted by Marksal:
Tired,
In terms of "succeeding only marginally, if at all," I would say that one need only be familiar with the morale of most struggling freelance musicians to see that most would have been much happier in other, more lucrative, professions than they currently are scraping together a living from music. Probably 90% of the music-performance majors in college or conservatory today should be enjoying music as a passion and hobby while majoring in something else to help them achieve a better future for themselves, which, I believe, will help the arts, too, as these music lovers become the audience and contributors of the future.

mmm.... but if they all did that, there would be no orchestras anywhere. period. great idea. besides, who says they'd be much happier? do you have a looking glass that can see where their lives would be headed if they had gotten a "real" job? i'd much rather be a "marginally" successful musician (by this definition) than be stuck at a desk job around people who have no clue what good music & culture is, & my colleagues i know personally agree with me. i have no problem with someone's decision to go into something else, that's his/her choice. On one hand, the individuals that choose a non-musical route are smart about it, & on the other, yes, they could have another life with gigs & whatever else they find with their instrument, & who knows what f/t orchestra gig they could round up. Due to the nature of getting an orchestra gig these days, I also understand the fact that some people just can't or don't want to wait around for that to happen, & that's fine. But to criticize people who choose music for a living is just ridiculous & out of bounds.

So far my statements have been called ridiculous (twice), narrow-minded and out of bounds. I am not sure what would be considered in bounds and out of bounds, but I do appreciate the basketball analogy, which I'll use to elucidate for anybody who still cares to read my postings.

Let's say we are talking not about the classical- music performance profession but about professional basketball. Throughout urban America, there are thousands upon thousands of African American teenagers and young men who dream of becoming NBA players. They therefore devote much of their energy to developing their basketball skills. They neglect the development of other interests, and their teachers and coaches often abet their students' basketball interests by grade inflation and other methods. Many of these teachers and coaches believe that a student who does indeed become an NBA player will be a source of prestige and respect for the teachers and coaches themselves, so they rarely, if ever, tell the aspiring NBA stars that the chance of professional NBA success is perhaps 1 in 10,000. Then, if he is lucky, the basketball-playing student gets an athletic scholarship to a university, where he again focuses almost entirely on basketball and is essentially unprepared to make a reasonable living in another profession. All has not been for naught: the gentlemen probably does turn out to be an excellent basketball player by most objective standards. However, he tries to get a position on an NBA team but fails to do so for several years, then bounces around the CBA for a couple of years making $16,000 a season, gets cut, and finds himself struggling to make money in pickup games and various odd jobs.

Do I blame this person, who worked hard to attain his dream but fell short? Not really. He was young when he started down this path. However, it seems clear to me at least that his teachers, parents, coaches, administrators, alumni, etc. are very much to blame for not helping to direct his energies toward additional areas that would have allowed him a more fulfilling existence than what he ended up with. I also cannot even begin to estimate the damage his pursuit, multiplied by thousands and thousands of other African American men, has done to the African American community as a whole. So many African American men who could have succeeded greatly and given back to their communities are instead struggling to make even a semblance of a decent living.

Replace the pursuit of an NBA playing career with that of an orchestral career and the parallels are clear, no? There are what, about 100 decent orchestral job openings a year in the U.S.? Indiana University alone has about 1,600 music students. The odds of getting a decent orchestral job are astronomical, yet parents, teachers, music schools, etc. continue to encourage young people to enter the profession. Then the kids graduate, and the real world slaps them hard right across the face with its indifference. The kids aren't prepared, and most struggle mightily to make a living. Some of the kids end up not even liking music a decade hence. It's very sad--for them, for society as a whole (which could have benefited mightily from their contributions in other fields of endeavor), and, in my opinion, for the arts industry as well, which could have had them as ticket-buying, contribution-giving patrons instead of struggling members at the periphery of the profession.

quote:

Originally posted by Marksal:
Replace the pursuit of an NBA playing career with that of an orchestral career and the parallels are clear, no? There are what, about 100 decent orchestral job openings a year in the U.S.? Indiana University alone has about 1,600 music students. The odds of getting a decent orchestral job are astronomical, yet parents, teachers, music schools, etc. continue to encourage young people to enter the profession. Then the kids graduate, and the real world slaps them hard right across the face with its indifference. The kids aren't prepared, and most struggle mightily to make a living. Some of the kids end up not even liking music a decade hence. It's very sad--for them, for society as a whole (which could have benefited mightily from their contributions in other fields of endeavor), and, in my opinion, for the arts industry as well, which could have had them as ticket-buying, contribution-giving patrons instead of struggling members at the periphery of the profession.

As one of the "kids" who has not been "slapped in the face" by the real world yet, I feel I need to respond.

By and large, those of us in school who are sincerely focused on careers in music understand the risks. We know that the chances of us winning a spot in Chicago or New York or LA are slim. We also know that in the end we can picture ourselves doing nothing else but playing music.

If the money and ultimate stability were the deciding factor in my career choice I would have given up music long ago. I have worked many part time jobs in my time as a student, and in EVERY job I've worked, I've been offered promotions, full time scheduling, a livable wage, and benefits. I've always turned them down because I know that I would never be fulfilled doing those jobs full time. I know that those jobs were just stepping stones to get me to the next level of my music career. I'm happy to say that as of the year 2007 I am completely dependent on music for my living. I can do other things and so can many of my fellow students. I am not unable to support myself in other ways. I have simply chosen the way that I feel best suits me.

In full disclosure, I am a student pursuing a DMA, and I play flute which among wind instruments is arguably the most competitive. Ultimately, my greatest aspiration is to play full time in an orchestra. I have been fortunate to have teachers who are encouraging. But I've also been fortunate that these same teachers have been very realistic. They have warned me every step of the way that the choice I was making - pursuing a performance career - was risky. They have repeatedly told me that the odds of making it to the top ranks are slim, not because they doubt my talent, but because they know that I am one in a sea of talent and that only droplets are needed to fill all the available jobs. I go into this industry with my eyes wide open.

The point is not that I can't make a living at something more lucrative. The point is that I am more happy living on "the periphery of the profession" than I ever would be living in the mainstream of another.

Yes, only a small percentage of music majors will make a full-time living performing. I know no music student who doesn’t understand that going in. But solve the catch-22: if only vocationally successful students will be music majors, how do we decide who gets to study? If likelihood of vocational success were a prerequisite for high level music studies, I certainly shouldn’t have been a music major!

I do not believe education is validated only by commercial success. I think it is worthwhile to have not only music schools, but also liberal arts programs, philosophy departments, film schools, journalism departments, and the like from which very few students go on to make a substantial living. And how to determine what defines success? Is a lawyer still a success if s/he does not become a Supreme Court Justice? Or, which is more successful, the lawyer who makes a good living filing out boilerplate paperwork helping people plan their estates or the musician who makes a modest living from the occasional Mozart Requiem, wedding ceremonies, and a handful of students? (I say the lawyer is succesful only if he is also playing the occassional Mozart Requiem!! )

The sports analogy is good. For one thing, playing a few years in the CBA would be a success! For another, can we point to anyone who would have been a success in some other area if they had not pursued basketball (or music) with a passion? No, I believe it’s a mistaken presumption that basketball playing youth are vocationally challenged because they play basketball. And there again, how to decide who does get to pursue basketball? And finally, I’m intrigued by the line of thought that concludes that pursuit of basketball creates a hardship on the African-American community.

Back to the business of music, one of my favorite quotes comes from our boss, Deborah Borda: "We're in the business of losing money to make music." Therein lies the shortsightedness of the Shreveport Symphony: by only pursuing concerts that make money, they assure themselves of never making enough money to make music.

The above quote by Deborah Borda (whose compensation according to the last 990 available was $894,390, not including retirement contributions and expense account) is somewhat reliable. The difference between the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the Shreveport and Columbus Symphonies is that the LAP is able to exist within its means. I don't recall any "emergency bail outs" coming out of Los Angeles.

It was also suggested somewhere in these comments about supply and demand and pumping more into marketing. Sometimes no matter how much is pumped into marketing, the product isn't going to sell if nobody is interested. The audiences of Columbus and Shreveport aren't going to be particularly moved to support these organizations through ticket sales because audiences want to know they are supporting a SUCCESSFUL operation.

Nobody still has broached the topic of salaries. LAP is a "nonprofit," but how many musicians would her salary support in either Columbus or Shreveport...or both!

Salaries of musicians, soloists, conductors and administrators are outpacing the demand of the ticket buying public. The last time Perlman was booked by my organization, his one night recital fee was $75,000. Another conductor demanded a six figure fee just for four concerts a year.

Me thinks the term "non-profit" doesn't apply to most.

quote:

Professional musicians in general are talented in many ways besides musical performance. However, many never realize these talents yet succeed only marginally, if at all, in the world of musical performance. If more of these people eschewed a musical profession and instead went into a more financially rewarding profession, they themselves would constitute the audience of the future, and the finances of orchestras nationwide would be much better off for having their patronage.

There are many ways one can earn a living in the music profession besides playing an instrument.

One of the recurring tragedies I see in this profession is that of the musician whose intelligence exceeds his talent. Over the decades I've watched the frustration of such exceptionally intelligent musicians - they KNOW they are smarter than many of the people holding positions in major orchestras, and they are correct, and it gnaws away at them. They try very hard to better their playing by intellectual means, thinking through technical problems, diligently researching matters of style, etc., but it never seems to help - the big job always eludes them; or, if already in an orchestra, the higher chair is never won and their considerable energy, skills, (and perhaps frustration) sometimes find an outlet in committee work. Perhaps this sounds bleak or harsh, but it is one of the common patterns I've noticed in the fascinating menagerie we call a Symphony Orchestra.

In one sense I agree with Marksal - I'm firmly convinced that many or most of these people would be better off in another career, and they certainly have the smarts to succeed at other rewarding, well paying professions.

The ideal orchestral musician (and I'm only half joking) is talented but not overly intelligent; or at least his talent doesn't lag behind his intelligence. And if he's more talented than intelligent, he will do very well and feel no pain.

Getting back to the study...

I should probably actually read the thing before saying anything, but I'm still in the middle of Alex Ross' book, so it may take a few more days and I think I can make a couple generic points:

- First, anyone who wants to slam critics need look no further than the piece by Andrew Druckenbrod. Yes, orchestras by nature lose money - that's what happens when you have 100 musicians and a 2,000-odd seat hall. But that doesn't mean they should do it in foolish ways or that someone shouldn't study it.

- It's a very legitimate point to make (and IMHO a great service to all people in the orchestra field) that some ways of spending money are not very efficient and could use reconsideration. If you're losing money on fundraising events or spending money on marketing that isn't earned back in ticket sales, you might want to reconsider your strategies. Same thing if your soloist costs exceed the extra ticket revenue they bring in (at least in some cases).

- An orchestra isn't a typical "business" and applying some techniques is clearly not appropriate. But spending money on things with both no artistic or financial purpose is poor management, and one point of the study appears to be that managements have long continued to do things that conventional wisdom suggests make sense, but in fact do not.

BTW, someone mentioned Deborah Borda's considerable salary, and while don't often defend executive and conductor compensation, I will suggest that both are probably in a better position than any orchestra musician to have a significant impact on the organization's revenues (or losses). Some music directors more than pay for their salaries through the money the manage to raise for the orchestra each year. And in Ms. Borda's case, IIRC, the LAPO was in a bit of a financial mess when she took over, and whatever she earns above the norm might well have been worth it to the organization.

More to come, perhaps, after I've actually read the report.

quote:

An orchestra isn't a typical "business" and applying some techniques is clearly not appropriate.

As the late great Sol Hurok once said: "If the music business was really a business, it couldn't stay in business." (LOL) (LOL)

Hurok was not a native speaker of English and was famous for malapropisms, like the Hollywood producer Samuel Goldwyn. Hurok was (allegedly) responsible for another memorable saying: "If no one wants to go to a concert, you can't stop them."