 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Aussie Nick
Date: 2003-05-17 06:35
Yes it is a shame, but could someone explain to me how such companies rake up debts $20 million?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick Williams
Date: 2003-05-17 13:01
Nick:
I didn't see that they had $20 mil in debt, they said they needed $20 mil in new financing to become solid. That said though, they probably either had a good credit line or got into their endowment principle to cover the shortfalls over the last couple of years.
The failures mentioned in the articles aren't completely surprising to me though if you consider the finances of what would be usual contributors to such organizations. When the market went south, a lot of people lost large incomes from their investments and probably cut off normal donations. Likewise the endowments themselves, which are invested, probably had much lower returns. A million dollar endowment that 3 years ago that paid $80,000 or better suddenly is paying $14,000 means the budget goes out the door.
Best
Rick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Grabnerwg
Date: 2003-05-17 19:46
I am on the Board of Directors of a non-professional community orchestra. We have expenses of up to $100,000 a year, for a variety for reasons, including office rental, admin salaries, hall rental. conductor and concertmaster salaries, music rental and purchase, programs, soloists etc. Keep in mind that most of the musicians (some VERY good) donate their time for free/
It's amazing how fast the cost mounts up.
This year, we have seen our funding drop 50% as the local funding agencies and the State of Illinois Arts Council have all had their budgets cut. We have also seen corporate sponsorship cut or discontinued, while expenses only go up.
Our investments are returning a pitiful return as interest rates are so low.
From that perspective, it's easy to see where an organization employing up to 100 people, including benefits, and mounting a much larger season that we could ever do, can burn through a lot a money VERY quickly.
Unless the economy turns around quickly, we are going to see more bankruptcies, unfortunately.
Walter Grabner
www.clarinetXpress.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-05-17 19:53
I'm sure that more and more tax cuts will solve these and all other problems!
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-05-17 20:28
Henry wrote:
> I'm sure that more and more tax cuts will solve these and all
> other problems!
At least we'll have a choice to put our money where our mouth is ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-05-17 20:34
Think of your favorite major US orchestra ...
90 or so musicians times about 140K/yr (salary + employer contributions)
Theres 12.6 million
+ a music director + administrative staff - there's another 2.4 mill easy.
15 million.
That's before hall expenses, tours, and a whole bunch of other incidentals.
Ticket sales don't come close to meeting 15 mil a year. You need sponsorships & endowments, and in a "down" economy both suffer greatly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-05-17 21:05
Mark:
Where do you get the 140K number? I thought we just went through a thread that indicated that 30K was (regrettably) high for a professional symphony musician. We can reduce taxes (mainly to the rich) to the point where not a single soul has job security, medical insurance, social security, "cultural security", etc., etc. Where is the end? I hate to pay taxes myself but a modern society has to take care of the essential needs of all of its members, particularly of those that are "on the edge". Yes, all of us who can afford it could send our check to some institution we favor but is that the answer?
I just had to get this off my chest. Sorry if it offends anyone!
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2003-05-17 21:21
Hi Henry,
I remember that thread but also there was a link that showed that the average salary in some of the largest symphonies was more like $80K+ so and 25% to 30% for benefits plus overhead charges for administration and you can easily meet or exceed Mark's numbers.
At universities, we usually add a 50% overhead charge on all research grants to funding agencies for "overhead" like mentioned above. This is a common practice in funded research and I suspect is no different in charitable endeavors as well.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-05-17 22:37
Henry wrote:
> Mark:
> Where do you get the 140K number? I thought we just went
> through a thread that indicated that 30K was (regrettably) high
> for a professional symphony musician.
Nope. The top symphonies in the US pay in excess of 100K / year. The 2nd and 3rd tier symphonies pay significantly less.
Even at a 30K / yr salary, that's 45K / year/ musician (as Hank said, a good number to add is 50% for benefits, taxes, etc.) * 90 = a little over 4 mil / year just salary.
The numbers add up fast for an orchestra! It's the number you need for a full orchestra that makes things pricey real fast.
A high-end conductor/music director can cost you an arm and a leg - or at least a significant fraction of what you're paying all those musicians.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-05-17 22:41
Henry wrote:
> Mark:
> We can reduce taxes
> (mainly to the rich) to the point where not a single soul has
> job security, medical insurance, social security, "cultural
> security", etc., etc.
Considering the rich pay most of the taxes in the US any reduction must necessarily favor the rich ... wish I was rich ... but anyway, IMHO the government is one of the worst ways to fund the arts. With all "public" money comes strings attached, and most artists want no strings at all ... just the money ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-05-17 23:04
Mark:
I don't argue with you that maintaining a professional symphony orchestra is expensive, at whatever level! But if we say as taxpayers that this and many other worthwhile social causes are less of a priority than waging war and enriching the rich by further tax cuts to their exclusive benefit, then I think we are in serious trouble as a society. My checks to Sneezy, Public Television, and other worthwhile causes do not compensate for the general cut-backs that are the natural result of the loss in tax revenues. This may be getting too political to your taste but I think it deserves to be said, even at a time where free speech is getting compromised more and more.
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2003-05-18 02:18
OK well I'm sure everyone read where it said they got paid 37-50 K a year......
But anyway, Its really not easy to keep an orchestra in the black nowadays when you think about how much they have to spend vs. how much money they can actually rake in on average (as pointed out by Mark C. and others) so things like this are unfortunate yet understandable. I hope we don't have to see this happen to any other orchestras.
Bradley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-05-18 18:49
We had a FINE, POPS-type concert last nite by our Bartlesville [OK] Symphony with the "Cherish The Ladies" [5] , Irish-Celtic, "tin-whistles" guitar, vi-fiddle, piano, vocals, an excellent-crowd-pleasing group with orch, plus 4 Scottish Dances, M. Arnold, beautiful! Even as a former member, I cant speak for their financial business, but it appears to be adequately [?] funded for now by our community and businesses. A few [out of town] musicians are paid for reh/perf/travel with AFM 94 agreements, allowing us to perform difficult works with some 5-7 concerts per year. Perhaps this modus-operandi will become more common, with the decline of many major orchs, their weekly concerts and very-great expenses! Thoughts? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2003-05-19 14:41
Mark -
>IMHO the government is one of the worst ways to fund the arts. With all "public" money comes strings attached, and most artists want no strings at all ... just the money ...<
True enough, but classical music has never paid for itself, and, up to Beethoven, and quite a bit past him, too, all the great composers had noble or church sponsors. If it's strings or nothing, I'll take the strings.
A modern fable from the New Yorker:
A king bought a bird and put it in a gilded cage. When the bird didn't sing, the king said, "Why aren't you singing?" The bird replied, "I don't sing on demand, or as a captive." "Who said anything about demands or captivity," said the king. "I'm offering you a job and a golden stage." After that, the bird sang more sweetly than ever.
Moral: The arts have no objection to being patronized.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-05-19 15:07
Ken Shaw wrote:
> Mark -
>
> >IMHO the government is one of the worst ways to fund the arts.
> With all "public" money comes strings attached, and most
> artists want no strings at all ... just the money ...<
>
> True enough, but classical music has never paid for itself,
> and, up to Beethoven, and quite a bit past him, too, all the
> great composers had noble or church sponsors. If it's strings
> or nothing, I'll take the strings.
I should have said more to the tune of "Democracies & republics are probably not the best way to fund the arts ...".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William Hughes ★2017
Date: 2003-05-19 15:57
Here are costs for our local symphony (as shown on their website appeal for donations):
"...ticket sales cover less than one-third of the cost of MSO [Muncie Symphony Orchestra] operations. Here's how your contribution to the Annual Fund helps:
$55 is the fee for one service visit for our copy machine.
$105 pays for the shuttle to pick up patrons at the parking structure for one concert.
$350 is the charge for the rental of one piece of music for one concert.
$450 covers the cost of printing and postage for one postcard announcing a concert.
$1,200 pays for the MSO Woodwind Quintet to visit schools for one month.
$1,800 rents Emens Auditorium for one concert cycle.
$3,500 pays 80 musicians' salaries for one rehearsal. "
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-05-20 05:24
GBK - what a thoroughly depressing scenario. Fortunately (???) we've only got a handful of professional orchestras - they're all going strong (as far as I'm aware).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-05-20 06:16
Mark Charette wrote:
Think of your favorite major US orchestra
Hmm - expenses expenses expenses. I just did some very rudimentary mathematics based on my home town band, their hall, number of concerts (assuming capacity audience at average prices).
Orchestra:
Sydney Symphony - 110 musicians
rank and file salary (average) $70KAU (95 people)
principal salary (average) $95KAU (15 people)
Salary bill (not including superannuation [what we call retirement fund], vacation leave/sick leave, casual players, other miscellaneous entitlements including overtime, instrument allowances, library and other disbursements) $8,075,000
Venue:
Opera House Concert Hall (capacity roughly 2,600)
Concerts per year 100
revenue based on full house and B reserve prices $13,000,000AU
So ... $13million minus basics (not including administrative staff et cetera) leaves $5million for hall hire, artists' fees, Music Director's salary, administrative staff - not enough money by any stretch of the imagination.
Having said that - they do make a profit - but they do have a serious corporate sponsorship program.
All Australian orchestras (ABC ones that is) also receive funding from the Federal Ministry for the Arts (primarily) and other State government and Local government (to a lesser extent) authorities.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-05-20 06:18
diz...Unfortunately we've seen a few orchestras in trouble in recent years, but current economic conditions have exacerbated the trend.
Another problem not mentioned is the "graying of America". As the average age of regular concert goers rises, one wonders if there are sufficient younger audiences being drawn to the concert hall. Do we substantially need to reassess our concert programing?
In addition, with rising costs and escalating ticket prices, is classical music pricing itself out of the reach of most Americans?...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2003-05-20 06:24
GBK - good point. Actually one of the Sydney Symphony's most popular concert series is the Contemporary Masters' Series (20th century). Funnily enough - this is held in the Sydney Town Hall - a far superior acoustic to the Concert Hall - shoe box shaped like the Musikverein and Concertgebouw and it is frequented almost entirely by Gen-Xers - go figure?!?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2003-05-20 12:10
Hi,
The Graying of America is a notion that I have followed. The key to replacing the aging, past supporters for many orchestras is developing the younger audiences but I'm afraid the window of opportunity may have been missed.
Here's a related example. The Cadillac Car Co. always built what was considered an Old Man's Car. Well appointed, quiet, but pretty "vanilla" if you get my drift. In some market research of owners a few years ago, Cadillac found that the average age of owners was getting higher and higher. The company saw the hand-writing on the wall and began to produce much younger-buyer focused cars all to appeal to a younger "audience."
Now, have the large symphony orchestras used the same type marketing approach. We shall see as the older and probably more solid financial supporters gray and ....
HRL
Post Edited (2003-05-20 13:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-05-20 14:13
A well-directed discussion, BBoarders, IMHO ! Its possible that is what I was trying to say above. In our small town, pop. 35000, we are graying, via retirements from a large oil co., and the fact that it is a desireable, not-too-expensive location, not far from 2, maybe 4, large cities. This is all too evident in our symp, choral and other classical concert audiences [and musicals!], and in our churches in particular. We do have a substantial population of younger workers, but the only times we have SRO audiences, in our one large and several smaller auditoriums, is when a "armed-service" performance by band, orch, group etc takes place and is FREE. Even among our "grays", I frequently hear the comment, before and after concerts, that "its too classical". Our local semi-pro symp. is, and has been, struggling with programming decisions and finances, and I believe the same is true of our PRO, once a year, OK Mozart, the middle of June, which brings in patrons from a wide area, and financial rewards. How applicable our "story" is to large cities and their audiences is open to question, wish I knew. Just wordy thoughts! Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-05-20 16:45
Mark rethinks: "I should have said more to the tune of 'Democracies & republics are probably not the best way to fund the arts ...'."
Other forms of government might be better at some aspects of artistic funding, but what you get from creative artists (as opposed to "performing" artists) is stuff that follows the Government lead. Look at some of the Soviet-era graphic art, for example. And wonder what Khatchaturian might have done had he not been so intent on following the party line.
Re age-related artistic preferences: A friend worked for the company that owned WLUP in Chicago, at one time a popular radio station featuring "easy listening" music. The listener-base went precipitously down, and the station was sold (the land under the transmitting facility was worth more than the rest of the station). I asked my friend what happened, and he replied: "All our listeners died." More truth than humor there.
Finally, from the May 26th edition of TIME magazine (p 46): average income for "Musicians, composers" in 2001 was $92,300. In 2002 it was $39,572. Yikes.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-05-20 17:22
JMcAulay wrote:
> Mark rethinks: "I should have said more to the tune of
> 'Democracies & republics are probably not the best way to fund
> the arts ...'."
>
> Other forms of government might be better at some aspects of
> artistic funding, but what you get from creative artists (as
> opposed to "performing" artists) is stuff that follows the
> Government lead.
Sometimes.
You can easily replace "Government" with "Religious" and say the same thing.
Or get a Michaelangelo or Da Vinci.
The problem, as I see it, is that when art depends on popularity you may tend to get everyman's ideal, which artistically is often pap. With one-mindedness you at least get a vision. Perhaps not what "everyman" wants, but a vision nonetheless.
I'm not sure that Maya Ying Lin's incredible vision for a memorial would have stood the "everyman" test ... as it is a traditional scupture had to be set up to deflect opposition to the statement she made.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-05-21 11:05
The Florida phil situation is just one of a number of orchestras in the US and Canada that are facing a tough problem.
Among orchestras with huge debts or gone as a result of financial woes.
Tulsa PHil is no longer running.
The Hamilton Phil is long gone here in Canada
The Montreal symphony is in the midst of a debt problem
San Diego is having trouble.
The Houston Symphony is having labor problems.
Winnipeg Symphony in Canada has a large debt.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-05-21 13:54
Again I say, South Florida's problems are not a microcosm of all orchestras.
The base for corporate funding in South Florida is shrinking dramatically, as that sort of advertising needs to produce results (or write-offs) or both.
If the funding doesn't generate recognition in the buying public (and sales) then it's charity.
The problem is that the community at large pays lip-service to supporting The Arts, but stay away in droves.
South Florida is an air-conditioned, concrete-encrusted, sweltering third-world backwater and deserves what it gets.
Meanwhile, 'second-tier' orchestras enjoy regular patronage, successful fundraising and *gasp* operations in the black ink!
3 years in South Florida - 2 years too many.
Now if they played cowbell concerti and had a tractor pull at intermission...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fmadison
Date: 2003-05-21 16:21
Hi,
I live here in Miami and yes we do have concrete and more. I always thought of Florida Philharmonic as a native of Broward County only.
Meanwhile in Dade County they are building a new Concert Hall in Downtown Miami.
Across in Miami Beach they have the New World Symphony in the Lincoln Center.
An of course the Miami Symphony Orchestra.
So the problem I think is that they are in the wrong County. Dade has more money more people. Nobody likes to drive 50 miles to hear Florida Philharmonic.
The local Broward market can't afford it. It is a shame too....
-Frank
It's the wood that makes it good!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-05-21 17:44
Re: Chevron/Texaco/Met Opera article:
Now really, who didn't think that was eventually going to happen? I'm surprised they even continued to sponsor to 2002 season...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-05-21 17:51
Along the same vein, previously ExxonMobil announced that they'll stop sponsoring PBS's Masterpiece Theater, I believe by the end of this or next year, after many, many years of support. The signs are not good! Such decisions certainly cannot be justified by low profits!!
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-05-21 18:55
Altruism is not a consideration in corporate expenditures. A company's profit picture has little to do with its use of "Institutional" advertising, which is not intended to sell products, but rather to polish the corporate image. The reason a corporate sponsor drope any institutional advertising is because the powers that be or their advertising agencies don't believe the advertising is doing enough good. If their perception can be revised, that is the key.
This may sound somewhat stupid at first, but corporations do listen to real people, at least when there are enough of them. My contribution will be to visit every Texaco and Chevron station I can as a practical matter. Not to buy fuel, but rather to tell them I am appalled that their head shed has dropped sponsorship of "Live at the Met" after 72 years. I will also write. One person can make no difference at all, but many will. How about you?
NBC planned to drop "Star Trek" many years ago. The only thing that kept Captain Kirk and company going was a massive outpouring of fans' insistence that the show simply had to stay on the air. NBC was pleased over the next few years that they changed their tune, because the show achieved great popularity. No doubt this was caused partly by the publicity.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William Hughes ★2017
Date: 2003-05-21 19:18
You can send you thoughts via e-mail to:
comment@chevrontexaco.com
Post Edited (2003-05-21 19:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
