Does the Symphonic Orchestra Model Work?
One of the Fellows participating in the Kennedy Center Arts Management Institute raised a serious question with me: can the traditional model of a symphony orchestra work in the United States? He observed that salaries are very high for musicians, conductors and guest artists, and ticket demand is not strong enough to cover most of these costs. High ticket prices are stifling that demand and contributions will continue to have to grow very rapidly to cover inflation.
I cannot argue with this analysis. Somehow the cost structure for American orchestras has risen to the point that every orchestra is likely to struggle to make ends meet.
I do believe that a group of elite orchestras will survive, and even thrive. These orchestras will have the support of their communities, a large thriving fund-raising program and, of course, exciting art.
But the number of orchestras that will be able to achieve this status will be limited. Already we see a series of regional symphonies closing, shortening their seasons or radically restructuring their contracts with musicians. Unfortunately, this is an ugly process that all too often is pursued with a sledgehammer.
Frustrated board members and administrative staff often approach restructuring with a feeling of vengeance: the musicians are getting what they deserve. They are all overpaid anyway argue the leaders of the restructuring.
While supply and demand must be used to evaluate salaries, the salaries for orchestral musicians are virtually always less than the salaries of the stagehands who set up their music stands and chairs! The challenge is that there are so many of them. A major symphony has over 100 musicians; their salaries represent a large and fixed cost.
So boards and administrators who are trying to make ends meet, and do not have the wherewithal to build earned and contributed income, look to reduce this high fixed cost. Musicians, unfortunately, are easy targets, for they have far fewer employment opportunities than the administrators who employ them; when a situation gets ugly the administrator can leave for greener, or friendlier pastures, the musicians are left to deal with reduced weeks of work and lower salaries.
In many cases, radical restructuring can be avoided if musicians and administrators embark on a reasonable, long-term planning process that addresses marketing strategies, fundraising approaches, and artistic initiatives. In other words, plans for activities that build revenue. But this rarely happens. In fact, the time administrators and musicians communicate most is during union negotiations, when only the cost side of the equation is under consideration.
Without a more enlightened discussion, orchestras are going to continue to fail or to reduce their levels of art and education. I am afraid my Arts Management Institute Fellow may be proven right after all.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I work for a medium-sized orchestra that straddles the border between symphony and chamber orchestra. As my boss recently said: "There are times when you’re better off in a rowboat than an ocean liner, because you’ve got more maneuverability."
From the little I know about the history of orchestras in the US, they grew out of primarily amateur music making. As the scale and complexity of music grew, formally-trained, professional musicians came together to form bands for hire. The size of these grew to require a membership, non-profit structure to support a professional orchestra with a stable roster that gave regular concerts (and, thus, more closely resembled the state sponsored orchestras of Europe). In light of this grassroots history (and considering the fact orchestras never enjoyed a great deal of state or national sponsorship), the largest of orchestras in the US may have (arguably) grown beyond the capacity of their structure. Some may have to change or expand their products, some may have to scale back, some may collapse entirely. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing (with the obvious exception of some folks being served pink slips, especially in this wonderful job market). However, to sound the death knell for all symphony orchestras would probably be a bit premature, in fact, is probably utterly absurd. We aren't all going to sit around and do business as usual and just watch the roof collapse around our ears (I hope).
To be a member of a professional symphony orchestra requires almost incomprehensible virtuosity. How do salaries of the 500 top orchestra musicians in the USA compare with other industries? Not very well.
A music director must have incredible abilities. Managing a symphony orchestra demands all the skills of a corporate CEO, but not the salary.
A development or marketing director can work for a hospital or university for several times the money paid by a symphony orchestra. Operations managers have to master administering complex labor agreements. We must rely on people who have a passion for the art.
We should stop railing at each other. We are not enemies. Our problem has to do with Society’s values. Why are sports figures paid millions? Musicians must make career decisions as children, then spend more money on their instruments than doctors have to invest in their practices.
I don’t know the answer to the problem of funding symphony orchestras. With all due respect to Michael Kaiser, I don’t think he realizes that the symphony orchestra in America is a ubiquitous community institution.
I’m no longer involved in a symphony orchestra. But I have lost no passion for its music and its importance as a community institution. These are hard times for all enterprises, whether for profit or not. But let’s don’t submit to the notion that only the “elite” institutions deserve to survive.
As a manager of a medium-sized orchestra, I think our smaller orchestras have a better chance of survival than the behemoths who are largely out of touch with their communities and have allowed expenses to bloat beyond reason. First of all, many of us are non-union which enables us to exercise greater control over wages. Secondly, we are closer to our patrons and the regions we serve, and have never lost sight of the fact that we exist to meet the needs of our communities, not the conductor, musicians, or administrators. That makes us more effective in fund raising, and in providing a product that will appeal to the people who support us.
I am a member of a mid size ICSOM orchestra so I am union. From your comment,I assume your orchestra is union despite not having 100% membership. Other than controlling wages, do you feel your first comment has any relation to the second or are they separate?
Outside of the very top ensembles which seem to compete with each other. I firmly believe that most orchestras/non profit arts groups are trying to serve their communities as best as they know how. That is not to say they are always successful. Where do you see most the most failures nationwide with community engagement?
A healthy debate is raging within America’s orchestras about the traditional cost structure or “business model,” and whether the current economic crisis will result in permanent change or just a period of instability. In other words, is this just bad weather or real climate change? The current, understandable, focus on economics masks the greater discussion that is ongoing; namely, finding new “sweet spots” for making the orchestral experience accessible and desirable to a broader cut of our society. A group of musicians, managers, and board leaders took a good look at the big picture. Their 2008 report (www.americanorchestras.org/knowledge_research_and_innovation/orchestra_forum_etf.html ) points out that “orchestra finances cannot be addressed in a vacuum.” Questions need to be asked about artistic activity, community relationships, and internal culture. These are big areas, and the solutions obviously will vary by orchestra and by community. How individual orchestras take up this challenge is not for us at the League of American Orchestras to dictate. Some can turn their operation on a dime; others move more slowly. In some cases necessity is mothering invention. The League’s role is to use every channel we have (and we are creating more) to research, put the word out about interesting experiments, and become a forum for the important conversations that matter. There’s nothing to be gained in laying blame at the feet of any one group. We need to channel that energy into innovative thinking– together.
This all makes it seem as though the League is a very inclusive group. That is, until you realize that the inclusion of musicians in their study is limited to only those they select and deliberately excludes professional musicians elected by their peers to represent them in such discussions or representatives from any of the musician unions. So the "good look" mentioned above is really nothing more than a self serving reflection of an image they want to see.
Ultimately, Mr. Rosen's statement is akin to how the pharmaceutical companies are influencing heath care reform. Sure, they don't "dictate" policy but who doesn't believe they influence the outcome of every piece of legislation that impacts their business in a way that suits their every whim? Mr. Rosen's claims of inclusiveness by having musicians take part in their research is no different than how the pharmaceutical companies secure physician support for their "studies." As a result, I would recommend that anyone considering this discussion to take League conclusions with similar credibility.
The only positive aspect to Mr. Rosen's comment is it reaffirms the enormous gap between meaningful musician/management discussion Mr. Kaiser is describing in his article. BTW, Mr. Rosen forgot to disclose that he is currently the League's President & CEO. Perhaps that's a group Mr. Kaiser should absorb into the Kennedy Center, or perhaps turn over leadership to one of the other characters mentioned here like Mr. Lebrecht or Mr. McManus?
Certainly lower prices have proved to work well--I have lived in the UK where the average ticket price is around £20 ($32) and concerts are filled with a much younger audience. But lower prices will never be achievable while musicians cling to inflated pay and outmoded work practices. Everybody in the business has no doubt that you could replace the bulk of the players in a big name orchestra with recent Curtis grads at half the cost (or less) and probably improve the sound. Paying musicians only for the hours they spend working (instead of paying 100 people for a Mozart symphony) would lower costs another 30%. There, I've just cut your main costs by 65%--enough to lower the average big city ticket below $30. But as long as the union holds sway, protecting jobs at non-market high pay with East German work rules will stifle demand.
And if orchestra costs drop, the lower ticket prices would sell themselves, thereby enabling administrators to cut staff deeply and drop the salaries of executives. How do orchestras expect to raise money from donors when the top 20 Executive Directors make more than $200k, in some cases $1 million??
Neither McManus and his musician apologists nor the League and its cronies will admit these facts.
Sounds clever, in a Republican kind of way. But you can't run an orchestra (or a ballet company) with people sent over from the union hall on a daily basis. You need a rehearsed ensemble that knows the season's specific repertoire, played together with the conductor of the week, in addition to their lifetimes of training. If an investment bank has no oil and gas deals cooking for a week, do they lay off their energy company analysts? I'm not defending underpaying a painter in a garret, but there are special conditions for creating large-scale ensemble-art that you're ignoring. While Michael certainly has a bigger picture in mind, see also "Baumol's Disease".
I am not talking about a pickup orchestra, where you hire a bunch of walkins. I"m talking about having annual auditions. Probably 80% of your musicians would come back every year, and they would become your core. And you can't compare unionized musicians to investment bankers.....as much as I dislike I-bankers, they are freely employed by their companies, without union restrictions.And they don't rely on donations or government funds to keep going.
In fact your argument about only paying players on stage is the one that the ASOL can't stop talking about. Having sat on the union side of the table a few times I have heard it more than I care to remember.
Your point about orchestra costs and ticket prices is not accurate. There is no parity in the orchestras of our major cities with regards to pay. Although our work rules are similar. A top price ticket at a classical concert in Phoenix is more than it is in Indianapolis. The Phoenix Symphony players earn less than half of their counterparts in Indianapolis. The overall budget of Indianapolis is well over twice that of Phoenix.
Ticket prices are generally close in price nationwide (too high, I agree) regardless of the budget of the orchestra. That is to say that an orchestra whose budget is 50% lower than another costs about the same to hear.
You're making no sense. Sure, I know Phoenix hardly has any endowment, whereas Indy has a reasonable one (and a long history of annual fundraising). But if any orchestra could bring down its costs by 65%, its ticket prices could drop by roughly that amount. Especially if you could match the musician cuts with administrative cuts as well,.
I know most don't care about us 75-year-olds who yearn to be able to hear good, unamplified, orchestral music. Here's what keeps me away:
The cost of the ticket certainly has an effect on how frequently I can go; I don't like to go at night; the logistics of parking and getting into my seat; the cost of parking; too many composers in one program; offering me sound and light shows to "enhance" my appreciation; dressing up; getting home without battling traffic. If it were easier, I'd be there with bells on.
BTW, I can I don't think anybody in the organization except the conductor should make more money than the lead-chair musicians.
But I do miss my live music. My soul aches for it.
While I usually agree with Michael's insights, I can't allow the tossed-in comment about stagehand salaries to stand without reply. Even if you assume that instrument practice time adds enough hours to eight-weekly 2 1/2-hour "services" to equal the crew's 40 hours, the players get relief-weeks, longer vacations, and rotating-services off. Michael's comparison is not useful or economically accurate. In general, even the top concert halls operate with far fewer stagehands than any other unionized performing arts venues. (For example, three men/women are on the day shift at Avery Fisher Hall, two on the night shift.) This makes their industrial productivity (and that's what we're talking about, sad to say) higher than some other tradesmen. (I'm not comparing their industrial productivity to that of artists.)
I wonder if Michael was reacting to the recent spate of this year's IRS Form 990 figures "revealing" how much some stagehands who work over 90 hours a week (and who can continue to work the kind of lucrative recording jobs most big orchestras have completely lost out on...) get in total compensation? The majority of those stagehand compensation dollars are non-guaranteed, per diem wages (plus, in the Forms 990, the entire payroll "burden".) If there's not enough work in the theater, even staff stagehands earn about what building trades get in the same city. The fill-in and extra crew members earn zero in that case.
I think that you are bringing up a good point here, but let's be careful about the comparative valuation of work forces. I do not think that the stagehand's hour of work is equivalent to the violinist's hour of work, and I doubt that you do either. The level of skill required to maintain/prepare the concert hall falls a great deal short of the skill level of any one musician.
Add to this the fact that the physical demand placed on a cellist, for example, is more risky than that of a stage hand because the cellist engages in a constant stress on his/her skills, both mentally and physically. It may be the case that a stagehand can incur a more grave injury from a one time catastrophe, but from a statistical standpoint, musicians endure more risk since their risk factors are continuous (at least while they engage in practice/performance).
Now, this is not to denigrate your point, but your point is a fine one and it deserves careful qualification. Do you think that this makes an important difference in the dialog?
I simply did not want Michael's imprecise statement, making a not-useful comparison of labor costs, to stand without a response. His writing is not characterized by "cheap shots", but that's how the single sentence appears to me.
You are right that it's an unwise area to make direct comparisons. When talking about the survival of orchestras, we should present a detailed budget, including various labor segments (including management...), and ask instead, "Is each an appropriate percentage of annual expenses?". Others here might add that we should also ask, "How can we produce an average admissions price of $X.XX". But within the American model, it's very unlikely that can be done without substantial unearned income.
It wasn't my point, but since you brought it up, among the reasons I retired early - and without a penny of disability money - was chronic forearm tendinitis that began years ago while stacking chairs and string platforms six times a day at a NYC concert hall.
The question"can the traditional model of a symphony orchestra work in the United States? " is not a serious one. It is at least unsophisticated. A better question, but an equally unhelpful one, might be can a symphony orchestra survive in any form at any size?
The economy has shaken most industries in this country including orchestras. What I find troubling about this article is the premise of elite orchestras surviving while simultaneously saying that the problem is that musician salaries are too high. The top groups, within the already elite ICSOM, are the only ones with high wages. So the thing that is killing us is the same thing that protects us?
Mr. Kaiser says that the only time both sides communicate is during" union" negotiations (I would like to call them " management " negotiations) I have to ask why. Musicians are left out of the conversation most of the time. If we get on a committee that deals with anything other than money it is often symbolic. The contract is the only place where we have any power. More money means a better product, a better work place, and in many cases more job security. The language of downsizing falls on deaf ears with players, who earn their income through performance, not out of greed (we don't earn enough to warrant the term) but because that direction is a death sentence.
I've worked for orchestras for many years and the unwillingness to face up to their real problems is the problem. This is a creative business that is very uncreative. Education and outreach is often tapped as a solution but then is completely ignored or underfunded. There's little or no sustained outreach to young professionals. Conductors fly in to town and leave once the program is over. They don't promote their programing despite being paid six-figure salaries. There's an overemphasis on development while doing nothing to prepare the calls. If they would begin to find ways, any ways, to fill their halls their problems would start to be solved. Black Mango had it right; a lot of the bad advice in recent years has come from the League of American Orchestras.
There are at least two important points omitted from Kaiser's article. First, I saw no mention of the huge staffs maintained by many orchestras. Does it really take a hundred people to get an orchestra of 85 players onstage?
Also, too little attention was given to the crucial matter of having good board members. I will never forget a comment made by Iving Kolodin when the young Riccardo Muti succeeded Eugene Ormandy in Philadelphia. The outraged critic wrote in "Saturday Review" that Exxon should spend more of its money training boards of directors instead of young conductors. It might surprise people to know how well some orchestra musicians keep up with the attitudes and actions of board members: we know who's for us and who's against us. An informed and savy board will also protect the organization from the nightmare of an incompetent executive director.
Incidentally, ticket sales have never been -- nor will they ever be -- the primary factor in the fiscal health of a non-profit arts organization. Get over it.
When I grew up in Chicago in the 40's every high school had both a concert band and orchestra. Now they have "Show Bands." Music education in America has been devastated by the math cult who "believe" that one can never have too much math. No Child Left Behind is the model for the cult and for destroying arts education. Here in Pittsburgh we have an outstanding school for the arts and an exceptional cultural life. Michelle Obama visited that exceptional school. Take a look at the price of tickets the young are willing to pay for pop groups as evidence of our failure.
(I am not a fan of anyone)
Education policy is definitely a big part of this problem, but you lost me with the whole "math cult" thing. If we're going to talk about NCLB, I think it might be more appropriate to talk about a "standards cult," where politicians and the ruling class can nix school funding based on test scores instead of a school's educational quality, however that might be measured. Scapegoating mathematics is a slippery slope that I think sets a bad precedent.
My perspective on this comes from a passionate study of music and mathematics. Personally, I'd like to see more of a mixture of the two in public school. I think that well structured, interdisciplinary coursework is the key to a good liberal arts education. For instance, learning about the acoustics of music helps one to appreciate the creative imagination as a natural outgrowth of the physics of sound. This is the kind of education that America needs to get back to, but it requires foresight and a skilled workforce in the form of well trained, fairly paid teachers. I worry that we've strayed so far from these principles that we'll never be able to regain our intellectual balance.
also--i'm soooo sure that the NSO uses good ethics in paying their musicians and auditions, but this is not so for for most orchestras (i'm biased as a musician of middle class background).
my whole musical experience was that of elitists only. my instrument needed to be over $30,000, auditions have become nothing more than a show of acrobatics. real musicianshipis totally optional (like the ability to sightread). the "who you know" and so forth--teacher, school...and you'd think that having lived in new york makes u a king. the monoculture is just amazing.
only the most talented or wealthy could make it, although a sad trend for some years now was for middle class talent to take out loans--for your instrument, your college tuition, etc. the ubertalented would burn out. the wealthy demand their high salaries and posh lifestyles. the rest are so in debt from the loans they must demand high salaries. being able to use a CREDIT CARD to buy an instrument has led to inflated prices and a flood of inferior instruments to boot.
i understood that for the top orchestras it was too many musicians and not enough concert-goers. but even the smaller orchestras were manipulating auditions and so forth. most grads spend a year auditioning...why? they weren't better musicians after that year. .it's just a gauntlet you do, until your former teacher gets on the phone and does some manipulating themselves...can't have my graduates not winning auditions...
the "museum" comment has a point--for most europeans, the majority of the classics are a part of their heritage. few american composers get the same play, and the modern US symphony barely embraces america's real innovative musical heritage.
most younger generation audience members would consider most classical music a hobby, while we listen to other types of music. most solo artists are chosen for their looks more than their interpretations...and they are playing 100 year old music. in a sterile posh environment. y bother going in person?
an update is needed.
observe seo taiji and Tolga Kashif:
take one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP9XlFmziCA
take two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnTozbT4zg4
tik tak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkKs3r4B0Xc
varese would have been proud i think...well who cares what he'd think, i really want that tricked out keyboard! the symphony almost compares to the live version of take two where the guitarists BURN THEIR GUITAR...almost...
this is just an example, but the last time orchestral performance was this energized with a new paying audience was the revitalization of the new american musical in the 90's. new orchestral music needs to bring in youth, who want an extraordinary interactive experience, and something that relates to them. new music should embrace the political, the controversial, not flee back to the traditional and historic.
i could say the same thing of pop music right now...what a drag. auto-tune and payola have destroyed music
Norman Lebrecht's analysis years ago -- that the problem comes from absurdly inflated fees for conductors and guest artists, not the salaries of the orchestra's musicians themselves -- still applies. When the income disparity between a conductor and a rank and file violinist, say, begins to resemble that between the CEO of an American corporation and an entry-level worker, as it does in many or most American orchestras, that's a strong indicator that something is seriously wrong with the current model. Another fiscal drain on orchestras is the plethora of overpaid administrators.
Not only Norm wrote about this, but the more succinct Drew McManus has been writing about this subject and making the very same points for years.The League of American Orchestras contributes to much of this irrational behavior and improper protocol that has somehow become acceptable in this day and age. Until orchestra boards start listening to McManus, Kaiser, and Lebrecht over advice coming from those influencing the League, things will continue to get worse before they get better.
At one time, Ancient Egyptians built immense pyramids. These are still among the Wonders of the World. The Egyptians soon stopped making them, yet we don't bemoan that fact because we well understand that there were economic changes; labor costs became prohibitive. A similar thing has happened in modern music. Economics has changed everything, and things will probably never be completely the same again. But we can adjust.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
