More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michael Kaiser

Michael Kaiser

Posted: February 7, 2011 08:26 AM

Over the past three months I have been approached by three separate regional orchestras seeking advice on ways to deal with crippling budget deficits.

In each case, the orchestra has suffered chronic deficits that have blossomed over the past two or three years. The combination of shrinking audience and donor interest has been compounded by the poor economy.

Each of these organizations has been bailed out before, but this time many major donors are angry and refuse to give substantial amounts unless a new business model is put in place.

I know these three orchestras are the rule, not the exception. One only has to observe what has happened in San Antonio, Miami, Honolulu and Detroit (none of "my" three orchestras) to know that the orchestra world is going through a major discontinuity, at best, and an implosion, at worst.

What has led us to this point?

1. Supply of orchestral performances in most communities expanded as management and labor agreed on expanded contracts over the past 20 years.

2. But demand has fallen for many reasons: Ticket prices have become too high for many, programming has not met the interests of a new generation, arts education has been neglected for most, and new, inexpensive substitute forms of entertainment are available with the touch of a button, or mouse.

3. The high fixed costs of producing symphonic performances means that orchestras are less flexible than theater or dance ensembles. A theater company can perform smaller works when things get tough, orchestras contract for a fixed number of musicians.

4. The death of the recording industry has led to the loss of our major marketing partner. We no longer have celebrity soloists and conductors being created for us to exploit in our ticket sales and fundraising campaigns.

5. Fewer people are able to commit to subscriptions, the continuation of a 40-year trend. This means that every program has to sell itself which is expensive and which discourages adventuresome programming.

Orchestra managers are trying desperately to find ways out of this mess, but often with too little lead time. They are pressured by boards and donors to make fundamental changes to the size of their orchestras and the ambitiousness of their programming.

Musicians are understandably upset at the proposed reduction in quality, salary and job security.

Unfortunately, rather than dealing with these fundamental issues as a team, the groups have squared off. The nasty comments made by both sides makes it hard to imagine how anyone would ever want to become a volunteer, board member, donor or ticket buyer again.

Musicians must acknowledge that deficits are not sustainable; we cannot spend more than we take in. But managers and boards must acknowledge that revenue can grow over time and we must not necessarily view short-term cuts as a long-term solution.

Every orchestra must find its own equilibrium; there is no one size that will fit all. But I maintain that those symphonies that create important, exciting work -- and market it well -- will have a better chance of creating great music and education and of building a base on which rational growth can occur.

And we must work strenuously to accomplish our planning in a spirit of collaboration not contemptuousness. The fate of the orchestra world hangs in the balance.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carol Kasun Dixson
03:51 PM on 02/11/2011
Tickets are expensive, programs are boring, all the people involved are aloof and distant from the paying audience. If you have a good recording of a classical piece, you are not doing without the music. Live performances are always much more thrilling and a totally different experience, but when you get right down to it, you go for the music. I think if the programs were more enjoyable, I'd find a way to purchase a ticket. It's like trying to go to a professional sports event, who can afford (or who would want) to bring the family to see overpaid, over-inflated egomaniacs play!
10:13 AM on 02/09/2011
Another classic example (no pun intended) of an American institution getting crushed under the weight of the unions. Did you know that National Symphony Orchestra members-- a union orchestra and the orchestra under David Kaiser's jurisdiction-- get paid some $80,000 a year for only a 20-hr work week? And that is approx. the same pay scale for the top 20 union orchestras in the USA.

Orchestras will need to shift back to those pre-union days when they drove a cab by day and played in the symphony by night. The golden era of the orchestra career is over.
12:58 PM on 02/11/2011
You have no clue. That is 20 hours on stage either rehearsing or performing. Add another 20 hours for practice and prep time, two services most days, nearly 450 services a year, 10 weeks of travel, brutal scheduling and the fact that these musicians are better trained than your doctor. They are an asset to any city, producing more in revenue and taxes than most sports teams. Those musicians are artists, and they are also the art, living and breathing art. Without them your city is just a collection of buildings which empty at 5PM.
You should support them for the good of your community. If orchestras fail, then cities will fail also.
Great cities are home to great art and great artists.
This isn't about musicians and orchestras, or unionism. Quality of life for everyone in the city is at stake.
12:00 PM on 02/12/2011
@DAVID-- To your dismay, as a professional freelance violinist/violist in the DC area who grew up studying with NSO musicians, and as a graduate of the prestigious NSO Youth Fellowship and Boston Symphony Orchestra Tanglewood, i do have a clue. I'm not interested in supprting an orchestral institution merely for the sake of its existence. That's welfare for the over-educated. I'm not saying kill the orchestra; I'm saying lessen the burden of its crushing operational costs by cutting back on salaries. WOW. What a devastating concept. It's no different than what we are asking Congress to do, or how other business-minded corporations are run.
And if you think orchestras really generate that much revenue for a city, then why is every single orchestra in the country (except for the Boston Pops) bankrupt? I don't see the Redskins folding anytime soon...
03:30 PM on 02/08/2011
Personally, I just can't stand the programs that Orchestras put together these days. Its the same old stuff that has been played thousands of times for hundreds of years. They need to incorporate more modern composers into their programs, but that's hard to do because the old rich club only want's to hear Beethoven and Wagner, and they are the main source of revenue for the big orchestras. This in turn turns new composers off to the orchestral medium because its very unlikely you will get your piece played if you aren't in the elite 1 percent of living composers, or you don't have a college program in your pocket that is willing to give your pieces a try. So now you see most of the exciting new music happening in chamber groups like Eighth Blackbird, who are more accessible to composers and audiences. I'm always more excited about those performances than the local Philharmonic.
10:49 AM on 02/08/2011
Orchestras must be maintained by donors. Public support is never enough. If you downsize your artistic budget, the public will see you as minor league and refuse to pay major league prices. Likewise, the donors will give less to a 2nd rate organization. Money begets money, so get out there and find it and spend it on the product.
If you want to cut costs, look at the bloated administrations. They spend the lion's share and have very little to show for it. It is better to shut down than present an inferior product, especially if you try to fool the public-- a dangerous business practice. Top quality costs top dollar. If you want cheap, you will get low standards for your money. As long as there is one orchestra that pays well, the best players will go there. Pro sports teams have learned this lesson; so will orchestras.
10:19 AM on 02/07/2011
I would make two comments.

Many orchestras that are feeling financial constraints relied very little on the recording industry for income or publicity. Historically, recordings tended to utilise only a comparatively select number of orchestras. Orchestras lower in the league tables were rarely able to factor in earnings from royalties or recording contracts.

At no time do we appear to hear of any financial accommodation being offered by conductors or artists, particularly those who are of international stature, in an attempt to ease the financial burden on orchestras. The current financial turmoil has an impact across the Arts, so it seems somewhat unreasonable that economies are apparently so disproportionately applied.
10:18 AM on 02/07/2011
And one only need look at last week's post about technology to see one of the easy solutions.

Grow your younger audience by engaging them the way the competition does. If your orchestra doesn't Tweet, you've nobody to blame but yourselves for your dire straits.

Art is ever-evolving, and only the art that doesn't evolve dies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:15 AM on 02/07/2011
For a long time, I have thought of a radical Arts programming model to send an Orchestra to an mid-western state or the south to open a new market for the symphony in that state or City. Major Foundations should supply a subsidy to share an orchestra w/other regions. The NJ Symphony does this with 6 venues in the state of NJ. There are poor immigrant audiences who would also go for $10- a ticket for Balcony seats for example, to fill them when they are not being used. Set aside 15% of the tickets for new audiences who can pay what they can afford, partner w/a local high school music dept and beyond , a County College or University nearby.