 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2012-01-09 04:09
Very unfortunate. Seems like this mess is in large part due to some dubious decisions by management. Skipping 3/4 of a season and raiding the endowment during a recession don't seem like the best of ideas. Having the management take a 10% pay cut whilst the musicians are asked to take a 90% cut doesn't seem like the best way to promote good labor relations either.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Christopher Bush
Date: 2012-01-09 04:22
The musicians of City Opera have a website up to state their case:
http://www.savenyco.org/
Christopher Bush
Prof. of Clarinet - NYU
Princ. Clarinet - Glens Falls Symphony, Metro Chamber Orchestra
Director - NYU Composers Ensemble
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-01-09 10:05
"They raided their endowment" ................. THAT WAS STUPID !!!!
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2012-01-09 12:43
From the news report:
>> Under a contract management proposed in early December, the musicians' average annual income would drop from about $40,000 to as little as $5,000 for two productions. For decades, musicians were guaranteed at least 22 weeks' work.
>>
Average pay of $5,000 for two productions left the musicians with no incentive to avoid a strike. They might as well go out and picket for the same $0 per hour they'd be getting for doing nothing during the cancelled productions.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2012-01-09 14:49
San Antonio Opera also in trouble. Cancelled next scheduled opera a few days ago.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2012-01-09 16:34
Operas and symphony orchestras are modern day musical dinosaurs, destined for extinction unless a more broad-based public interest can be resesitated. More serious attention given to public school music education may be the long-term answer........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2012-01-09 17:10
Unfortunately for those of us who care about music, that decision is in the hands of school boards whose priorities, in order of importance to them, are keeping taxes from going up, keeping test scores on standardized math and reading tests from dropping, keeping interscholastic sports funded, keeping taxes down, keeping unions at bay if they can't be destroyed entirely, test scores in reading and math, keeping NAEP evaluations in core academic areas positive, keeping taxes down, sports ....
If there is any concern at all for supporting the arts it is aimed at public displays - concerts, art shows, musicals - and at satisfying minimal state requirements to avoid state funding penalties. To make a dent in the attitudes of Americans toward serious (non-rock) music, it would need to be given far more time and structure than is, AFAIK, the case anywhere in the U.S. outside, perhaps, of specialized schools dedicated to the performing arts. The trouble is, teaching any discipline in a way that has any hope of encouraging students to internalize an informed understanding, much less appreciation (valuing), of anything requires structured exposure time, requiring far more expense than any school board, certainly any board of a public (tax-supported) school system I've ever read about, would consider for the arts.
What I've just written expresses my fundamental frustration with a 30+ year career in public school music teaching. It's hard to see how this will turn around ever, much less in the near or intermediate future, so I don't think the long-term solution to the problem can be found in the public schools. Unfortunately, as the availability of quality musical exposure in the society at large decreases (as orchestras and other arts institutions one by one go bankrupt and shut down), the demand also diminishes, as fewer people can be brought in by experiences outside of school and that portion of the public who might have attended concerts, operas and the like, move on to other sources of entertainment.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-01-09 17:31
What a drag, another major music organization in big trouble on the verge of going out of business in our country. I hope they settle and keep the company alive and well. ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-01-09 19:12
I personally don't think things are so dire. The economic situation is cyclical and when the cycle is back up there will be a "Hey wada we gonna do with all this cash?" mentallity again. One answer will be the arts. Then the New York City Opera better reinvigorate its endowment again.
Remember kids, NEVER TOUCH THE PRINCIPLE !!!!!!
......................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DrewSorensenMusic
Date: 2012-01-10 00:38
I happen to agree with Paul, economics is a sine wave, and we're just in the trough. The only problem with this one (and I have little economics background) is that it's the Governments that have gone bankrupt as well. A way to get over a recession is for the Government to step in, build roads, bridges, get money back into the enconomy to jump start it like an old Chevy. But the US government (and some other European ones as well, not that it makes a difference) has spent up to it's limit, so it's no help this time.
As I see it, a lot of entertainment will have to take the brunt of the hit. People will stop supporting the arts and sports, they can't afford it. Eventually the market will even itself out again, and arts will probably grow again, on a smaller scale.
Some may blame George Bush, I blame Ralph Nader.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2012-01-10 13:12
From the news accounts I've read, it seems the NYC Opera board and management would rather retain George Steel, whose disastrous management and artistic decisions have driven the NYC Opera into a ditch (at a $325,000/yr salary) and become to all intents and purposes a low-rent community opera company (with per-service pay for ALL the artists, including the singers), rather than continue as a major-league outfit. NYC Opera management and board are saying, in effect, "We have failed in our stewardship of this institution, and now musicians have to follow us into the basement." I think it's that simple.
In flush economic times, orchestra managements and boards had the luxury of making stupid decisions over and over again, knowing their endowments and/or donors would bail them out (see also, "Philadelphia Orchestra"). They no longer have that luxury, and the difference between successful orchestras and bankrupt ones is pretty stark, and musicians have NOTHING to do with it. Yet, over and over again, musicians are expected to bear the brunt (via givebacks and wage reductions) of management ineptitude, and publicly vilified when they refuse to make yet another concession, yet another giveback.
Unfortunately, the public vilification works. I recently quoted Broadway wage scales to a friend who works at a big technology company, and she was surprised (and a little p-o'd) to find out that some Broadway doublers make more than she does. Unfortunately, she's completely ignorant of all the work, practice, and sweat-equity any Broadway player has invested maintaining that career position. I suppose my rejoinder to her should have been, "I see why these guys EARN what they make; all you do is twiddle numbers, how on earth is that worth the enormous sum you're getting paid?" Because, all too often, that's the mind-set we're communicating INTO.
The mission of educating the general public, especially on a one-on-one level, never stops!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2012-01-10 19:05
This time is different.
> I think this dip/recession is much different and the weak will not survive. Too many of the big players are eating the lunch of the smaller fish. Look at the MET broadcasts - I would rather pay $25 and hear the MET in my local theater than pay $100 to hear the Lyric Opera here in town. Dudamel is putting on great concerts in my local theater. Don't have to pay for parking either. Don't have to dress up etc.
> Orchestras do not increase in efficiency through technology even though other industries do. It's called Baumol's Cost Syndrome. So labor costs remain high in relation to ticket sales and contributed income.
> Yes music education in the past 30 years has been abysmal in the US. Our priorities are in the wrong places. But the money is there. The head of GROUPON is now a billionaire and he graduated from the Northwestern School of Music just a few years ago. Shows the benefit of music education in other areas of work.
> The Grand Reckoning (economically) has not yet happened. There is too much sovereign debt out there and the real important decisions have been pushed back to beyond 2012 election. If you think the past four years have been bad, wait until the US actually has to address the federal debt issues and tax increases on the 99% who really have nothing left to hold onto.
> The big guys will survive. If you are in the MET or CSO or NYPO or LA PHIL then you are sitting fine. But anything below those levels and you better start developing other skills to go with your music making because the future is not bright and this is not just a cyclical issue as it may have been in the past. Just ask the guys in Denver, Louisville, Syracuse, NYC Opera, Honolulu, Philadelphia, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2012-01-10 19:45
In addition to the economic and mismanagement crapfest, the reduced priority in education and other sectors for music, I think, belies a critical disconnect.
There are institutions at the top, but there seems to be a lack of cultural base to support it. Music is often seen as something that happens "over there", as a spectator rather than participatory experience. The ease of availability of recorded music has exacerbated the problem.
Music has become largely a commodity.
However, lately I've been seeing a slow yet growing resurgence in interest and enthusiasm for a personal, experiential involvement in music. In the past year, I've been invited to and attended more impromptu musical parties and open jam sessions than in the previous 30 combined, and not just with school-musician-friends. These have been initiated by relatives, by people I met at the farmers market, by a guy selling CDs at the grocery store.
I was at a klezmer jam session on Sunday in a local cafe, with a facilitator who provided sheet music, a dance leader, about 20 musicians, and another 25 people who came to watch. Pure musical experience, casual and intimate.
Week before that, I played a set with a band at a folk music marathon/BBQ at a rural curio shop.
Week before that, after a holiday dinner one of my relatives goes to the piano and busts out some Chopin and Brahms, the family transfixed.
This is what I think can revitalize our music scene, a reinvigoration in the personal experience of music in small, intimate settings. If people are familiar with music, any kind of music, on a friendly, casual, meaningful level, they'll be more inclined to find it an important priority, to fund it in education, to provide a cultural base upon which orchestras, operas, etc. can draw and flourish.
At the moment, the musical institutions are held up by very shaky pillars, even in good economic times, and in bad times these pillars break. However, I'm very optimistic about the possibilities of a low-level resurgence in the musical scene.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-01-10 20:00
Using easy numbers:
100 members of an Orchestra at 90K (benefits+taxes) = 9 mil $/yr.
2000 seat hall 100% full, average $50/ticket, 75 concerts/yr (~1 every 5 days year round)=7.5 mil $/yr
That's a shortfall of 1.5 mil $/yr before conductors, staff, hall rental, advertising, and all the other good stuff. The USA doesn't support the arts to any great extent (at least not very often to the tune of millions/orchestra).
If the rich don't kick in a substantial amount of $s or the endowment doesn't make enough money, the orchestra is a losing proposition. Mismanagement makes it lose faster in a down economy. But it's always been a loser financially, even when the halls are filled. You can educate the public until the cows come home, but the 2000 seat capacity, ticket prices, and performance schedules put hard constraints on how much money you can take in.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DrewSorensenMusic
Date: 2012-01-10 20:15
In theory, advertising revenue should easily make up the difference, considering the 150,000 people attending. Not do mention 4xs profit on overpriced drinks and snacks. (I don't know the business for sure, maybe the refreshment sales go to the establishment). Get creative, offer tours, meet the musicians, masterclasses, visit the rehearsal, but catch the problem in advance. How could nobody see this coming and stop it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2012-01-10 20:20
Orchestras have always "lost" money. But they served as a beacon of civic pride for most cities and the leaders of the communities supported them until labor relations soured to the point of many of them walking away. I am not taking sides - just stating the facts.
But I agree that many forms of music making have grown. Just last week, I went to Nashville TN to see the Grand Ole Opry and to cruise the Music Row. The city was packed and the Grand Ole Opry was sold out. The hall seats a little over 2000.
But the business model is very different and has worked for many decades without really any transformation. They do have an Iphone app to broadcast via modern technology.
I just think that most cities in the USA will not support a full time orchestra going forward. I think this is unfortunate esp when some cities can support numerous sports teams and college athletics in a manner that the arts can only drool at enviously.
It remains to be seen how the larger markets will support the bigger orchestras 5-10 years from now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DrewSorensenMusic
Date: 2012-01-10 20:59
Facebook and Google seem to do ok on ad revenue. Then again, newspapers are going bankrupt. You'd think Rolex, BMW, Grey Goose, Apple would love the orchestra crowd. Another $5 mil for 10 advertisers is only $500,000 each, and that's a whole season's worth! 20 advertisers, $250,000 each. I'd say that is quite a bang for your buck.
An education is key, but current education. I live in Philadelphia, and we have sports (Eagles american football) radio 24/7. What happened to orchestras performing on the radio? Shock someone. Perform Carmena Burana on air. Night on Bald Mountain, the Sorcerer's Apprentice, Punch em in the face and watch them come back for more. Provide a free service to get them hooked, then they'll be begging for more concerts. The tune should be live, but need only be 5 mins. Have a comontator. He/she will educate the people. "Ooh, this is conductor Yada Yada's 5th performance this season." Add a little drama, "They've only rehearsed this piece for 5 days", and then after the big finish, "Wow!!!! What an incredible performance. Yada Yada's best to date. I haven't seen an orchestra respond like that since the last condutor, Mr. So and So, performed The Same Work in Ninteen Somepity Something. The orchestra will be performng next week at ____"
I dunno, maybe things have changed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2012-01-10 21:15
Finances:
- Facebook and Google have WELL over 2000 visitors per week. If your audience numbers 500, you won't get as much ad revenue. A fanciful $500,000 to reach optimistically 150,000 people? That's over $3 per impression. With Google AdWords, I'll pay maybe 20 cents per person that actually *visits* my site, with no charge if people just look at the ad without clicking.
- I don't think I've ever bought a snack or drink at the symphony. Perhaps a bottle of water in '03. If they allowed chocolate malts inside the hall, I'd be down.
- It's easier to support a sports team than an orchestra because of sheer audience size. 20 athletes selling 50,000 tickets vs. 90 musicians selling 1,200 tickets.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2012-01-10 21:17
Not to mention that you're not getting 150,000 UNIQUE visitors per season when you sell 150,000 tickets. Probably closer to 25,000, says my random guess, given season tickets, return visitors, and no-shows.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chorusgirl
Date: 2012-01-12 19:08
The way I see it, a HUGE problem lies in the education, or lack of it, going on in our public schools.
I have a sixth grade general music class - my kids LOVE the music I play. Carmina Burana, The Planets, etc. Just as with anything else, they have to be hooked from the minute they come into the class. Now that I have caught their interest, they will listen to Mozart - we talk about his life, his personality, his death - they are fascinated by the idea that waaaaay back then, there was no internet, no electricity (!!) so music was how they entertained themselves.
I teach in a community about 90 minutes outside of two major metropolitan areas. Think we can get a major orchestra to come here and perform for the kids? Nope.
When I taught in NYC there was no shortage of availability of performing groups - Juilliard, Midori, etc. all offered grants and programs so that kids in the urban schools had access to this type of arts education.
So, now I've moved away, and no one is interested in coming here. Yet, these kids are THIRSTING for this type of music - they WANT to hear it, learn about it, experience it.
Orchestras, choral groups, etc have to re-invent themselves and realize that outreach to the schools is where their future lies, but it has to be ALL the schools in all areas - NOT just in urban settings. I understand that it means traveling further to reach these schools, but it has to be done. If we get them when they are young, we can raise a new generation of kids who have an appreciation, an understanding, and yes - a love - of this type of music. It will NEVER happen without that kind of personal and more intimate interaction between professional groups and schoolchildren. (IMHO).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DrewSorensenMusic
Date: 2012-01-12 19:47
Don't get me wrong, I do think a good education will enhance the ability to keep orchestras alive. Also outreach programs are important. I think orchestras can learn from professional sports teams. They incorporate multiple ways to reach the public, and the public love it. And the great thing is, most of the people that love sports don't play them themselves. Sports are part of education, they are on TV, they are at stadiums, professional teams reach out to schools, they give back to the community, they have advertising, they talk to fans. I don't see any of this happening from any orchestra, anywhere. The Baltimore Symphony has a program where normal people can perform with the orchestra. Brilliant! More of that is needed.
The one problem with my mindset is that Americans Love Commercials. Why, I have no clue. If you've ever watched an American Football game without commercials, it is an immensely boring game. And without commontary, outragiously bland. Orchestral numbers can be hours long, and that just doesn't fly with the American public. That's why Americans don't like Soccer. There's no stops, and although there is a lot of action, people don't see it because it all runs together. Maybe it's better to have 5 minute symphonic pieces, really quick, really edgy, then cut to commercial, set up another song, boom, have another.
However hard you educate, this is still a Youtube generation. A throw away generation. An I need it now, but now I don't want it anymore generation. They work hard, talk fast, think less, and demand more. Orchestras may need to change their tune, before the people will listen.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2012-01-12 20:18
I dunno about Americans loving commercials. Once I got a TiVo, that whole theory went out the window.
Also, you don't have constant commentary if you go to a football game live. It might be an idea, however, to have commentary over symphony concerts that are broadcast on TV. Perhaps as an optional audio track (on the SAP channel or something... does that still exist?).
You do have a very valid point about all the things that sports teams do that orchestras don't. There's a very "we bring this music to the unwashed masses from on high" vibe in orchestral concerts. I've seen attempts to bring that down, with moderate success, but very very few groups are successful at shedding it completely.
There's also the problem of now vs. old. A sport is all about what's happening right now, where an orchestral concert is more a current interpretation of a quite old thing. It's more a "history comes alive" endeavor, which is great, but which is a much harder sell.
Sports and music are very different things, and no matter how much you try to put analogies together for what works for one and not the other, I think at a certain point you have to accept that some aspects are unique to one or the other. A cell phone would never disrupt a Patriots/Raiders game, and a fan screaming "eat sh*t and die" in the front row at the top of his lungs would never NOT disrupt a symphony concert, no matter how much I like to suggest that the atmosphere should be loosened up.
The key thing I think we HAVE lost, that I think is vital to a reinvigoration of the music scene, is the musical equivalent of tossing a football around. Anyone, young or old, while watching a football game, can say "let's go outside for a pickup game", and go outside right afterward and do it. They may not be great at it, but they'll have a good time.
How often do you see someone go to a concert or listen to a recording, and right afterwards say "That was great! I'm going to go play some music!"? Someone who's not a trained musician. It does happen, but it's by far not the norm. More often, they may say "That was great! I gotta pick up the violin again" and they mull over the possibility of taking lessons again for a week before MAYBE looking someone up. That barrier between music as something to watch and as something to do, I think, is extremely significant.
We need more casual performance. Jam sessions. Music as "something I can do" rather than "something someone else does", and, more importantly, "something I can do right now in a manner that's enjoyable without extensive training". I think there's a cycle between this and education, where the prevalence of one feeds the other, but the dearth of one also starves the other. Right now, it's dire, but not hopeless. It needs to be kickstarted, though, either at the educational level or at the social level. It seems pretty obvious to me that education isn't going to be the one to make the first move in today's climate.
However, something we can all do, and not even "in an attempt to save the musical landscape" but because it's just a great thing to do, is to bring music, without the rules and the baggage and the barrier to entry, into social situations as often and as enthusiastically as possible.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2012-01-12 20:19
DrewSorensenMusic wrote:
> The one problem with my mindset is that Americans Love
> Commercials. Why, I have no clue.
Quite to the contrary I'd say that most Americans or people of any nationality for that matter absolutely loathe commercials. I suspect the real reason for the frequency of commercials has much more to do with broadcasters wanting to sell as much advertising time as possible than it does the limitted attention span of the audience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinete09
Date: 2012-01-12 20:43
What about Berlin Philarmonic has been doing with the digital concert hall, I think they are making a sustancial profit out of it. . Maybe other major orchestras should implement something similar!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2012-01-12 20:59
Webcasts and theater broadcasts do seem to be getting somewhat popular lately. I'm not particularly keen on them (I'd sooner go to something live) and don't think it addresses the cultural-base aspect. At the same time, though, I have no problem with the idea, and if it helps the orchestra stay afloat, all the better!
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DrewSorensenMusic
Date: 2012-01-12 21:15
People might think they don't like commercials, they even say they hate commercials, but it's simply not the case. Let me make a few suggestions:
If people hated commericals that much, they wouldn't stand for commercials, and they would discard anything that supported or allowed commercials into their lives. That being said, people might not like commericals, but commercials are tolerable when they allow a person to watch/do what they would like to do. The positive aspects of 16 to 18 minutes of TV programms is essentially worth more than the negative aspects of 12 to 40 minutes of commercials. So maybe I'll rephrase, people in the US are very used to commercials, and will eagerly put up with them in order to lead to something they deem worthwhile.
Maybe not think of commontary in the sense of football or soccer, but in the sense of tennis. There is commontary in the breaks, not during match play. The difference is points in tennis are quite short, and symphonies are quite long. The HUGE benefit of commontary is that it tells people how to talk. This may be a strange thing to say, but have you every watched Sports Center, and then had a conversation about sports with someone. The only thing they do is repeat what the guys on Sports Center said. They have no new facts on the game, most have never played the game in their lives, yet they can have an hour or more conversation on the sport. They ingest what the commontator says, and then they can speak the language of football, therefore feel as though they are part of the game. Nothing is a good conversation starter like, "Did you hear what happened to (insert you local sports hero) this week?"
Now vs Old: Well, the birth of football dates back to 1892, and the first NFL game was in 1920, so I'd hardly call it new. Actually, that puts, Debussy, Stravinky, Ravel, Holst, and a bunch of other guys younger than the game of football. Maybe the players are younger in football, but not really that either. There are some fantastic 10 or 12 year old performers and soloists, and that is unheard of in football, so orchestras win on that battle as well.
I don't know if people need to perform to be interested in something. I haven't thrown a football is years, but I still watch every game on Sunday and Monday. I'm pretty sure that most people are the same way. After a 6 pack of beer, two chili dogs, a burger, and a pound of fries nobody's in the mood to play football.
So let's get back to commercials, which seems to be of particular interest here. What commercials bring to the table is suspense. The drama of the unknown, what's going to happen to him/her, are the couple going to get back together, I wonder what's going to happen when they get to the party. Commercials delay the moment, the feeling, which further intensifies the satisfaction of the result. This is why a chase scene in horror movies takes forever, and you're always yelling at the person running, cause they always run the wrong way. But it keeps you in the moment, your heart pumping, the thrill prolonged.
On sport orchestras could learn from is cricket. CRICKET?! Yes, Cricket. I'm aware that most of you couldn't tell me what an over, a bowl, or test is, but that's not the point. I hardly know the game myself. But what Some Cricket leagues have done is shortened the game, made it accessible to modern culture. Look Up T20 if you're interested. This essentually puts a Cricket game in the length of time as a regular baseball game, where it used to take 3 to 5 days to play. I'm pretty sure they're had much success with this new phenomenon, and orchestras could learn that people enjoy new things, loathe repetition, and would probably really enjoy good music if it were presented to them in a nice package that fit their lives.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2012-01-12 21:39
I actually ditched TV 3 years ago, currently subsisting on Netflix. But I'm probably the exception, and I also don't have access to current TV programs.
Great point about how to talk. There isn't much about that for music. Most of what you get is informational/historical/educational, but I'd say that pre-concert talks and such are more akin to explaining the RULES of football than analyzing the gameplay. The only commentary on the action comes from criticism in the next day's newspaper, and is too far removed at that point to be of any use.
I'm not saying people have to play football in order to enjoy it, but there isn't a barrier to entry. They *could*. It's not seen as something so far away, the personal connection. And maybe the kids go out to play, or they see it in the park later that day. It's present.
People don't need to perform to be interested, and at a jam there are typically more non-players than players. But even the non-players often see themselves as participants. When you go to a football game, and when you're watching your grandson throw a ball at the park, everyone on the sidelines feels like they're part of the action, like they have some say. I don't get this vibe at concerts (you're perhaps a lucky witness), but I *do* get this vibe at casual performances and jam sessions.
Sports also have the benefit of having consequence. Someone wins or loses. This effects their record, and who will go to playoff, and who gets bragging rights in the rivalries. Music doesn't really have an equivalent... you know that, after the concert, the music will have been played, and this won't have a bearing on whether or not there's a concert tomorrow (at least not a guaranteed if-they-win-they-play-again mechanism).
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2012-01-12 21:49
It's stupid to compare sports with music.
Yes there is much to learned from one discipline that can be used in the other, but comparing the two disciplines is pointless.
And yes I follow sports and have played sports through HS.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DrewSorensenMusic
Date: 2012-01-12 22:06
I don't think orchestral music is successful enough to "rule out" anything. Sports in some areas are highly successful, sports in some areas are terribly unsuccessful. It is important to be open to everything, and learn from everyone. Music is entertainment, just as sport is. There are much more similarities of music to sport than music to engineering. Maybe classical performers have dismissed their similarities, and in doing so virtally renderend themselves obsolete.
The Berline Philharmoniker is exactly what needs to be done. Kudos.
Winning and Losing: This point is true, at the end of a game there is a score. You can follow statistics, play fantasy leagues. This will be a hard match for music. I do believe this is where music and sport may separate. I cannot seem to find a useful equivalent, but not a problem. Where there are differences, there is opportunity. Perhaps there is a way to make an unsided form of entertainment excel over the rest.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2012-01-12 23:04
"What about Berlin Philarmonic has been doing with the digital concert hall, I think they are making a sustancial profit out of it."
-----------
It may be nice to have in order to hear and see the BPO electronically. But considering the relatively low number of subscribers to offset costs, sadly, this has not been a good model to grow revenue.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
