 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2013-08-29 12:34
Nashville 15%. Minnesota director threatens to resign if dispute is not settled soon, in time for Carnegie performance. Woe for many.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2013-08-29 15:33
Are these cuts any surprise when most of the potential audience for orchestras thinks music is either singing with a guitar or the audible output of a show featuring performers bouncing around a stage having lots of flashing lights and very big loudspeakers generating loud noises?
Until someone can figure out how to convince people under 55 to listen to what most of the people who participate in this forum consider to be music, given the nature of supply (lots of talented musicians) and demand (not many good performing jobs), don't expect the economics of classical music to improve.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EBC
Date: 2013-08-29 17:31
Woah, and somehow I doubt that your goal of "[convincing] people under 55 to listen to what most of the people who participate in this forum consider to be music" is particularly well-served by pointed sarcasm at this group's expense.
To the OP, both very unfortunate pieces of news.
Eric
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2013-08-29 18:08
Eric, I for one detected no sarcasm whatsoever in GeorgeL's post; just a healthy dose of reality. I agree with him 100%.
I perform in both the classical and 'popular' worlds and believe me, there is a very marked difference between what classical music aficionados consider "music" and most other listeners' concept of what constitutes music.
What's your answer to the audience problem?
Post Edited (2013-08-29 18:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EBC
Date: 2013-08-29 19:01
David, clearly we've drawn different conclusions from GeorgeL's post. Nevertheless, I did see it as sarcastic, and I feel others would agree with me. If the man himself cares to enlighten us, however, I'd be happy to take his word for it.
I have no answer to the audience problem that hasn't been discussed at length on this board and elsewhere. I was simply pointing out that what I thought to be sarcasm probably wasn't it.
Furthermore, if "classical music aficionados" have such a limited definition of music - as both GeorgeL and yourself have suggested - perhaps they too need to expand their horizons a little.
Eric
Disclaimer: Keith Richards' and Daniel Barenboim's autobiographies sit side-by-side on my bookshelf. As do Bob Dylan's Chronicles and John Adams' Hallelujah Junction, by some strange coincidence. Hm...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-08-29 19:09
David Spiegelthal wrote:
> What's your answer to the audience problem?
It has seemed to me for a number of years that "the audience problem" really is a fairly new issue that hasn't been the most important problem in maintaining "classical music" outlets in the past. The audience in the seats wasn't in the symphony orchestra's heyday its main source of support. Orchestras have traditionally owed their financial well-being to corporate and private sponsors who, for a variety of reasons, felt classical music and, by extension, being associated with it as a sponsor were important. That kind of commercial and philanthropic support, again for a variety of reasons, have diminished in volume and zeal over the past couple of decades so that ticket sales are now probably a far more significant chunk of orchestras' budgets, both directly and in the advertising revenue large audiences attract.
I think "the audience problem" didn't require a solution in the 1940s through the 1970s. If it does today, it reflects some very basic shifts in attitudes among the social elites and corporate leaders who seem to have either abandoned the orchestras for other beneficiaries or run out of money themselves to continue to help.
If the Philadelphia Orchestra (my only first-hand point of reference) is now playing in Verizon Hall to houses that are 75% full instead of being sold out as they were routinely in the past, that difference of 25% doesn't explain their recently having declared bankruptcy. Boards of Directors in the US, whether with good reason or not, have in my view moved clearly from viewing their orchestras as cultural institutions for which they're responsible to find support to viewing them instead as businesses that produce a cultural product and which need to sustain themselves within their own business model.
I think performers are unused to that shift and haven't adjusted to it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-08-29 20:16
I don't bother going to any live performance of any orchestral group , symphonic, chamber ect because I have a good quality Hi Fi system and about 430 CDs recordings of some of the best orchestras in the world.
Why should I bother traveling to a concert hall, trying to find and pay for a parking spot, then pay more money for the privilege of hearing a live performance , placing my posterior on a cold seat, then when the concert is over traveling home again, often in city traffic. There's also the public transport option but it has it's own problems.
I'd much rather stay at home in my comfortable living room and enjoy the recordings at my leisure. I can even knock up a nice meal for myself whilst I'm at it.
The one thing that is missing in all this of course is the visual spectacle of seeing the actual orchestra but hey, I could go buy DVDs of many orchestra performances these days.
Many would say that if I love this music so much I should go to live performances and support the orchestra/s.
I must be honest here and admit it. I don't care !
Way back on the Clarinet BB someone suggested that musicians started putting themselves out of a job when they started recording themselves, especially in recent times in high quality recordings.
I think there's more than a grain of truth in that.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-08-29 20:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-08-29 20:44
Barry Vincent wrote:
> Why should I bother traveling to a concert hall, trying to find
> and pay for a parking spot, then pay more money for the
> privilege of hearing a live performance , placing my posterior
> on a cold seat, then when the concert is over traveling home
> again, often in city traffic.
Well, for many of us it's because no recording fully captures the sound of an orchestral performance in a good hall. Even with my eyes closed (eliminating the visual component) it's very different in a concert hall.
Your point is valid for more popular, commercial or theatrical music, where the sound is all heavily amplified and little or nothing of the acoustical content reaches audience members' ears. In that case, if there's no visual wow factor, all you have left is the interaction between people (performers and audience), which for me is still worthwhile in some kinds of performance.
Maybe it's just that the seats where I go to hear concerts aren't cold.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2013-08-29 21:06
This last year, the Spokane (WA) Symphony Board of Directors screwed their musicians into a 20% pay cut --along with other serious compromises (like health insurance) in their contract.
The Symphony Board merged with the Fox Theater Board (refurbished, great venue in downtown Spokane), making the Spokane Symphony the "house band" for the theater.
There is really no "audience problem" in Spokane.
There is really a marketing problem. When benefit concert were held to help out the musicians, full and overflowing houses resulted.
'most everywhere, it seems, there are movements to hurt the incomes and well-being of classical musicians. The division of the industry into Union and "Managment" seems to force "management" to make cost cuts --even if there is absolutely no need for them.
I'm sick to death of the disrespect that makes it so difficult for musicians to earn a living through their art.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2013-08-29 21:11
Not many professional concerts bands around anymore either. I miss them too.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-08-29 22:26
The Opry is plenty loud, but not deliberately repellent and not at volumes that damage their ears (and those of the audience) within a few minutes. Most Opry performers stand still and let their fingers do the talking. I may use ear plugs at the Opry, but I don't need two pair plus ear muffs.
By contrast, many pop bands routinely play at 115 dB and more, which causes irreversible hearing loss after 15 minutes. Neither do Opry performs smash their guitars or simulate (or perform) sexual intercourse on-stage. Their object is to play with joy, not defiance.
Pop performances with superstar personalities really exist only on video, where the stars barely pretend to be singing and there are thousands of snippets auto-tuned and assembled into the final product. "Live" performances are lip-synched, with the video flashing behind on a giant screen. It's actually more effective on YouTube.
----------------------------------
Live classical performances are for me much more immediate than recordings, even of live concerts. Particularly in solo and chamber music concerts, I get sense of the performer engaging with the music, cresting the challenge of difficult sections and charming my spirit in the gentle parts. There's a live give-and-take. Sure, I listen mostly to recordings, but if I didn't go to a piano recital every so often, I'd lose something vital to my soul.
----------------------------------
Classical music (which is where I live) has always been paid for by nobility of the crown and church. The Koch brothers, who give megabucks to classical music, are no more nauseating (and no less) than Prince Esterhazy or the Margrave of Brandenburg.
The arts have no objection to being patronized. It's the way they survive. When bloated plutocrats run short of money, symphonies get pay cuts, and some great ones die.
That's the moral dilemma that every classical performer must face. As Stan Freeberg said, "You play that plink plink plink plink jazz, or you don't get paid."
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-08-29 22:29
I'm retiring from the Baltimore Symphony after 50 years next week and I belive there are many reasons for the symphony industry being what it is. We took over a 25 percent cut in salary several years ago too. Many orchestra's in America have taken large cuts in recent years and several smaller goups have either gone under or become per service orchestras. One reason is that many of our orchestra's have gone to longer seasons because us musicians wanted to actually make a living all year. The financial problem with that has been trying to attract an audience for many more concerts as well as even more contibutions to balance a larger budget. I worked for a while but has more recently become a larger problem because of many reasons. Incompetent managements, smaller audiences and less financial contributions from companies or large contributors. Orchestra's only receive 40 to 50 percent of their expenses from ticket sales. some more, some less. Many orchestra's today, ours included, have more people on their staff than musicians. It's unbievable how many workers are employed in a large sympnony that work in their offices. Other expenses have increased over the years. We didn't need computer people 20 years ago, we didn't need to keep a website, energy costs and insurance and health care have increased a huge amount since I joined the BSO. And of course, less and less middle age people are interested in coming to hear classicial music. We do so many other types of concerts these days to bring people into the hall. The excuse that people won't come down town doesn't hold water. We do a 6 pops concerts series 3 times each in Baltimore and one in our "second" hall and the hall is usually well sold. We do several concerts with movies playing the sound track live, we do many childrens concerts and many "special" programs during the year. Many "holiday" programs and other different types of programs and we still have big fincancial problems. Of course gov't grants are down as well.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-08-29 22:42
Kdk said "Well, for many of us it's because no recording fully captures the sound of an orchestral performance in a good hall. Even with my eyes closed (eliminating the visual component) it's very different in a concert hall".
Well I"ve been to live concerts and I have my high quality sound system and the two listening experiences are different but the Hi Fi sound is not inferior to the live one. Just different. I love the 'surround sound' (Concert Hall ) effect of my Hi Fi.
Also the way many performances are recorded , one hears instruments clearly that are often not heard clearly in live performances.
This of course often results in an unnatural (in depth) sound. This however can be very enjoyable in itself.
Also of course I often , whilst listening to my CDs , replay a track that I particularly like. Because I have so many recordings I can also create my own program and so forth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-08-29 23:47
Barry Vincent wrote:
> Kdk said "Well, for many of us it's because no recording fully
> captures the sound of an orchestral performance in a good hall.
> Even with my eyes closed (eliminating the visual component)
> it's very different in a concert hall".
> Well I"ve been to live concerts and I have my high quality
> sound system and the two listening experiences are different
> but the Hi Fi sound is not inferior to the live one. Just
> different. I love the 'surround sound' (Concert Hall ) effect
> of my Hi Fi.
I guess I won't see you at a live concert, then. This is a personal preference. You don't seem to have a musical preference between the live hall and your hifi and instead base your decision on non-musical factors - traffic, parking, cold seats, etc... You certainly aren't wrong in your complaints about the concert-going experience. I *do* have a preference based on the sound and, esoteric and indescribable as it may be, the ambiance of a concert hall and am willing to put up with all the inconveniences you cite.
I suspect most people who feel as you do have never been avid concert-goers in the first place (hifi stereo has been around for a long time) and, therefore,perhaps aren't relevant to the financial problems that have increased for orchestras and classical musicians over the past decade-and-a-half or so. That's fine - you're entitled. Unless you (and others with similar feelings) only stopped going to concerts recently, the orchestras never had your money to begin with, your withholding it isn't why they're in touble.
The bottom line, neither possible pun intended, is that filled seats have never really supported live orchestral music in any case. It has been Ken's "nobility" - personal and corporate philanthropists - who have historically paid the greatest part of the costs of making orchestral music, whether or not those responsible even attended the concerts. That largess has for now (maybe forever) dried up even as costs have risen. Except for perhaps jettisoning some of the office staff Ed P. describes, the costs are unlikely to come down significantly without seriously altering the basic nature of such ensembles. The future, I would guess, belongs to the ensembles who can solve the problem of finding income from new sources.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-08-30 00:52
Kdk said "I guess I won't see you at a live concert, then"
Well Karl, actually you would. I'm a member of the Local Gilbert & Sullivan Society. This is an amateur group. I"m the principle Oboist. Despite the name , we perform other Operetta's and Musicals as well. We are based in Maitland NSW Australia. Our committee organizes concerts to keep the audience attendance up by having us move around the local townships in the region (Hunter Valley) They advertise ahead by several weeks. It seems to work. You could say that we're a traveling theater group.
As you were saying , Hi Fi has been around for a while now. As a guess , I think Hi Fi came in during the 1950s with the arrival of the micro-groove 33.3 rpm long playing vinyl. And for a while this made people want to go to live concerts because they were being exposed to a huge range of the old 'Art Music' (Classical) on these records. HMV. Angel Decca Deutsche-Grammophon ect
It is said that some of these recordings and their famous conductors have never been surpassed.
However , as the recording quality kept improving over time (Stereo ect) there was apparently a real drop off in audience numbers (bottoms on cold seats) Generally speaking , musicians gradually put themselves out of business with the more high quality recordings they produced.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-08-30 08:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2013-08-30 01:38
I'm convinced that people are actually becoming a bit deaf, even at early ages. This gradual deafness is caused by overexposure to loud sounds. However, people's taste in music is suffering similarly for the same reason people are increasingly preferring processed chemical laden food. One only learns to appreciate traditional instrumental music after going on a fast from loud and synthetic sounds. As a people, our taste in music is suffering because of an overexposure to processed sounds. These sounds are toxic to the brain and people in general need a cultural detoxification. If you want to learn to appreciate a diet of simple foods like steamed fish, raw nuts and fruit, and salads along with whole grains, you need to eliminate ingestion of harmful foods. If you want people to appreciate orchestral music, in general I believe they need to consciously avoid loud and processed music.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2013-08-30 03:07
@George
> Until someone can figure out how to convince people under 55 to listen to what most of the people who participate in this forum consider to be music
perhaps stop cutting school music programs could help? Or how about getting off your ass and volunteering for small 45min performance at elementary/middle school around corner?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2013-08-30 16:07
David got it right; no sarcasm intended. The music we enjoy and play is different from the music that much of the general population enjoys listening to.
I play in several community bands and while we have a growing number of talented younger musicians joining our groups (their difficulty in finding musical employment is a great help to a band), our audiences tend to be older people who will sit quietly through a band concert and appreciate what they hear. Young people with concert manners honed at a rock concert do not sit quietly, much to the consternation of our traditional audience.
The future of classical music may have been predicted by the TV broadcasts of the Boston Pops. When I was younger, PBS would show entire weekly concerts of the Pops conducted by Arthur Fiedler. As time went on, the PBS shows featured the Boston Pops under John Williams with at least one popular entertainer. Eventually, the only part of the concert that was broadcast was the popular entertainer performing with the Pops providing background music. Now, the Pops are on TV in Tucson only on July 4, and most of that show is a parade of popular entertainers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2013-08-30 16:09
David got it right; no sarcasm intended. What we call music is different from what much of the general population calls music.
I play in several community bands and while we have a growing number of talented younger musicians joining our groups (their difficulty in finding musical employment is a great help to a band), our audiences tend to be older people who will sit quietly through a band concert and appreciate what they hear. Young people with concert manners honed at a rock concert do not sit quietly, much to the consternation of our traditional audience.
The future of classical music may have been predicted by the TV broadcasts of the Boston Pops. When i was younger, PBS would show entire weekly concerts of the Pops conducted by Arthur Fiedler. As time went on, the PBS shows featured the Boston Pops under John Williams with at least one popular entertainer. Eventually, the only part of the concert that was broadcast was the popular entertainer performing with the Pops providing background music. Now, the Pops are on TV in Tucson only on July 4, and most of that show is a parade of popular entertainers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JonTheReeds
Date: 2013-08-30 16:56
For me nothing beats a great live performance (interesting article on this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23717228) whether it's classical, jazz, rock or whatever. Good music is good whatever style, and a great performer (which is where a CD doesn't make the grade) elevates a good show to to the sublime
I totally understand Barry Vincent's view that if you just want to listen to the music then it's probably an adequate experience to put on a CD while cooking dinner (although slightly puzzled that Barry plays in an amateur ensemble - why would I want to go and see your show when I can put on a CD at home ;o)
The bottom line though is that for culture to survive it has to be relevant and accessible and perhaps some people are put off by classical music because they see it as somehow 'elitist' and not for them. However, I think that the average person knows a huge amount of classical without being aware of it through the use on TV and perhaps, if orchestras put as much into marketing themselves to people as the average pop group, they could avoid financial problems. I can't remember the last time I saw an advert for a professional orchestra but am constantly bombarded with ads for the latest one hit wonders
--------------------------------------
The older I get, the better I was
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-08-30 20:13
Jon said :- "I totally understand Barry Vincent's view that if you just want to listen to the music then it's probably an adequate experience to put on a CD while cooking dinner (although slightly puzzled that Barry plays in an amateur ensemble - why would I want to go and see your show when I can put on a CD at home ;o)"
As I said Jon, I play in a Theatre Group Orchestra. This means the centre of attention are the play actors. These are visual concerts we do. We supply the music support for the singers and actors. We are suppose to be out of sight in a orchestra pit but this can't be done in your typical Town Hall or Community Hall. So there's no point in listening to a CD of our shows, all the action is happening up on stage.
This local amateur group gives me an outlet for playing my Oboe and sometimes my Clarinet / Flute. So there's no need to be puzzled
When I said that I can "Knock up a nice meal while I'm at it " I meant that I can sit down and enjoy listening to my CDs whilst also enjoying a meal. But more often than not, I usually just sit in my favourite arm chair and the listen to the marvelous sound of a modern Hi Fi set up.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2013-08-30 21:33
The situation with music is the result of several factors:
1. Home entertainment is so much more available that people stay home more at night. Traffic is heavier now, making it more difficult to go to concerts, etc.
2. The culture of the USA has changed a lot. One example is that, in California, caucasian descended people will be a minority next year and are close to it now. Classical music is mostly derived from Europe and jazz comes from America, but neither are generally in the culture of the new immigrants.
3. School systems have defunded the arts, while doing a lot of lip service to them. They have spent billions on bureaucracy and on new schools (now called infrastructure) which are sometimes not occupied or used well. Was $400M reallly spent on the new high school on the site of the Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles and, years later, still not occupied??
4. The federal and state governments are in a state of self destruction, financiallly speaking.
5. Endless resources have been and are being spent in wars and aid in foreign countries for many reasons. Now, some advocate bombing of Syria and Iran!
Good wishes to you all!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2013-09-01 19:32
I think everything mentioned above plays into it, to varying degrees. However, enumerating the varying reasons why people don't go to concerts, I think, can land you at a dead end. I have two points to offer...
(1)
The most powerful aspect of a live event, compared to a private viewing/listening, is one of shared experience. I say live event, not live performance, because I see it as much of an experience between you and your fellow audience members as between you and the performers that makes something visceral, worthwhile, and engaging enough to stoke the public interest.
I was at a screening of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in Bryant Park a few weeks ago (in the heart of midtown NYC). Thousands of people gathered to watch the movie, in chairs, on the grass, at tables, standing along the edges. Not a live performance, a movie. It was one of the most moving experiences of my life. This many people gathered with a common cultural bond, and the emotions were overwhelming. I'd seen the movie countless times, but this time I was brought to tears when Charlie gave the everlasting gobstopper back to Willy Wonka. There were gasps and cheers in the audience, and you couldn't not join in.
That's what to chase in live performances. That's why you pay $100 to see a band whose recordings you've listened to a million times... the whole package deal. Yes, the sound is a bit better, and you get to hear what they do with it at the moment, but in my experience, what makes it worth $100 is the organic nature of being there in person. If it's a packed crowd, the primary draw is being among an immense throng with a unifying bond. If it's a small or empty house, the draw is a rare intimacy with the performers.
If you're just there for the quality of the music, your Hi-Fi will do just as well, and there's NOTHING wrong with that on either side... there are pros and cons to the stereo system, just as there are pros and cons to a live listen.
What makes a live event more enthralling is simply the fact that you're there with other live people for a unifying cause, and the more aspects of it that are live (i.e. actual performers vs. a recording) the more potential for it to be compelling.
(2)
You can enumerate reasons people don't go to concerts until you're blue in the face. In the past I've been possibly the worst offender of this. This road leads nowhere. Instead, focus on things to bring people TO concerts. Think of your ideal situation. What would it look like? How would people respond? How would you play? Who would be interested? Why would it be such an amazing thing? What could you do to make it more compelling, both inside and outside the hall?
For each reason someone DOESN'T GO, you also have the potential for a compelling reason for someone to GO, one that's significant enough to override their reason to not go.
Ideally, you'll remove as many obstacles between your audience and your concert as possible, to make it easy for them to attend. However, just reducing the cons does nothing if you haven't built up the pros. There are some concerts that I wouldn't go to if they were free, right next door, at a convenient hour. Give a reason TO go. It can be marketing, environment, community, actual quality of the performance, etc. Establish this first. THEN eliminate obstacles.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-09-01 20:14
There's many other ways these days to spend your entertainment dollars these days and many more activities to spend it on. Plus what I said before. Period!.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-09-01 21:12
EEBaum wrote:
> Instead,
> focus on things to bring people TO concerts.
And then would the orchestras that are now going bankrupt or insisting on large give-backs from their musicians be solvent and thrive?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2013-09-02 18:08
>And then would the orchestras that are now going bankrupt or insisting on large give-backs from their musicians be solvent and thrive?<
I don't know, Karl. The finances of orchestras are not sustainable based on ticket sales, and primarily depend on the continuing goodwill of donors, donors which are becoming more sparse. I see it as two almost independent problems to tackle. One of an audience, another of finances.
One is to create a groundswell of support for the orchestra. If people genuinely LIKE the orchestra, and if the orchestra is full of reasons TO see it, they'll find themselves filling the seats.
Full houses won't save an orchestra, though. The only orchestra that pays its bills based on ticket sales is the stadium packing Andre Rieu. And you'll notice that his audience is there for a shared experience, the experience I'm talking about.
However, the logistics of a concert hall where you want pristine sound do not allow enough people to pack the seats to make a ticket-sales-only model viable.
My recommendation is to create an orchestra that has enough reasons TO see it that the hall is always full, and that it becomes a cultural cornerstone of the area that people want to see. At that point, you have a greater chance of large donors seeing it as something worthwhile.
The availability of such large donors is another thing entirely, and it ebbs and flows. Such is the nature of things.
Further, even when times are good, donors will typically pitch in just enough to make an orchestra solvent. It's the threat of an orchestra going under or cutting staff or seasons that will cause donors to open their purses, IF the orchestra is seen as a local necessity. A well-off orchestra isn't likely to garner many more millions in donors when they aren't perceived to "need" it. Just like a subway performer that looks well-off isn't as likely to receive donations as one with high skill that looks like he's down on his luck.
Hence the financial quandary of performers. The *donation* money tends to come primarily when you're in hard times, and in just high enough quantities to keep you afloat. And this only when the donors have surpluses of their own to throw around. The *ticket sale* money comes whenever someone wants to see your show, regardless of your financial situation.
Regardless, if you aren't providing something people see as worthwhile, and going above and beyond to create reasons for people TO see your performances, you'll lose out on both ticket sales and donors.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2013-09-02 18:36
At the core, though, the orchestra is a wildly expensive luxury, and always has been. As much as it is near and dear to our hearts, there's just no money in it. An enterprise that requires 100 highly-trained performers to play to a hall of 2,000 is prohibitively costly.
It would take a full 2,000 people willing to plonk 5% of their yearly salary to just cover the musician salaries, not to mention facilities, marketing, management, etc. Do you know 2,000 people who make $80k/yr, each aiming to part with $4,000 a year to keep an orchestra going?
Only a groundswell of "we want it around anyways and will foot the bill" will keep an orchestra around.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2013-09-03 12:40
Military bands presently receive from taxpayers $320,000,000 per year. In October, the amount will be reduced to $200,000,000 for the coming fiscal year. Huge cut in a huge total.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2013-09-03 15:38
I don't think there's EVER been an orchestra in recent times that paid its way through ticket sales alone, so I think the audience dropoff, to the extent it exists, is only part of the story, and perhaps not as big a part as all this commentary might imply. Instead, I think a big part of the issue is faulty stewardship on the part of those who are supposed to keep symphonies alive and flourishing.
When you sign yourself up to serve on the board of a symphony, you sign yourself up to raise money. Period. When you pay some symphony president a comfortable six-figure salary (at least double what the best-compensated musicians in the orchestra make) you ought to expect them to step up, when times are hard, and REALLY raise money. And foster the kind of programming that brings people to the orchestra (or, increasingly, brings the orchestra to the people). That's all part of the job, always has been, and it's gotten tougher recently partly because of a dropoff in attendance (the exact statistics are debatable) but also because of a demonstrable dropoff in donations from those who ordinarily contribute, or help raise, money to justify their plummy Board seats.
If attendance drops off, you find a way to increase it. THAT'S YOUR JOB. If your administrative headcount has increased such that overhead has become unsustainable, you cut some heads. If you invested endowment money in questionable financial enterprises, you ought to be replaced, not given a raise and a seat at the bargaining table.
What you do NOT do, it seems to me, is start whining about how much the musicians make, not when you're sitting on a fat wallet yourself (as most of the major orchestra presidents and boards are) or spending extravagant amounts of money THAT IS NOT YOURS on questionable real estate transactions or hall renovations. What you do not do is to demoralize the orchestra that gives you your reason to be there in the first place, cut its quality, impair its ability to deliver the services to the community that you agreed to support, when you took the presidency or the board seat.
Not unless you simply don't have what it takes. Then, it seems to me, the FIRST thing you do is demand pay cuts from the orchestra.
I'm sorry, but in my view the real problem with 'symphonies in trouble' is a poor quality of stewardship, and a lack of work ethic on the part of the elites who are supposed to be nurturing these institutions. And it's the musicians, who show up and do their damn jobs and do them well, who end up getting the misery.
Unfortunately, there's no true accountability in the symphony racket, unless you're a musician. Then, it's ALWAYS your fault.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-09-03 23:42
Doug said (or, increasingly, brings the orchestra to the people)
That's what our little theater group and it's orchestra does. We move about and play in the surrounding country towns. Our concerts are advertised several weeks ahead and when we arrive to perform at the usual community halls ect we find we have a 'full house' audience most times.
We don't have our own 'home location' We practice in the local Prison in one of the factory buildings. This is the old Goal (Prison complex) which was decommissioned a few years ago. It is now used as a tourist site including ghost tours at night would you believe ! We pay the Tourist Board who runs this site rental for the use of one of the buildings within this complex.
Oh , and none of us musicians are payed. We just love playing. Hence the 'amateur' status. But our standards are high. At the moment we are doing the musical Sweeney Todd
Of course all of this has nothing to do with the problems of the professional orchestras. Even if the professional orchestras were to vanish off the face of the earth, there will always be high standard amateur groups performing.
But what a shame that would be.
Perhaps there would still be a few professional groups around busy recording music for the CD and DVD industry.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2013-09-04 01:46
When people stop attending concerts, donations slow because corporations have less incentives to advertise in that venue. It's just like sporting events or any other form of entertainment. If people don't go, why advertise?
So attendance DOES matter, even if it's not from the perspective of ticket sales.
I also agree with comments on the other thread - I can only hear Mahler 1 so many times before I stop seeing it live and just pull the CD of Bernstein with New York out and revel in its perfection. The music at orchestras is becoming so "form" it's ridiculous...the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2013-09-04 18:41
"I can only hear Mahler 1 so many times before I stop seeing it live and just pull the CD of Bernstein with New York out and revel in its perfection. The music at orchestras is becoming so "form" it's ridiculous...the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again."
No kidding. Of the nine (or ten if you count the 'extrapolated' 10th) Mahler symphonies, over the past decade or so I've played only two of them in the various community orchestras I work with -- the 4th once, and getting ready to do the 1st for the THIRD time. I never thought I'd get tired of the 1st but getting close -- especially since I'm always playing the Clarinet 3 book which means lugging around Eb, C, A, and bass clarinets every time.
As far as listening to classical music, we have exactly one classical music station in the Washington DC metro area and they are HORRIBLE. Endless Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and hardly ever anything more recent than Brahms, except when they get really BOLD!!!! and play some Rachmaninoff (which is OK you see, since he was a very conservative Romantic so his music sounds like it came from the 1800s anyway). And they got rid of the few good DJs they once had years ago, back even before the station (formerly WGMS) got new management and then were bought out by PBS.
When I was a kid I eagerly awaited a midnight program that WGMS had called "After Hours" during which they could get pretty adventurous with the programming --- I heard a lot of really great stuff during that show, lesser-known works, modern works, etc.-- stuff which really piqued my interest in classical music. But no more. The current incarnation of the station NEVER plays music like that anymore. The non-stop pap they now play ad nauseum is so mind-numbing it even puts my dog to sleep (I turn on the radio near his cage with that station to get him to snooze).
Jazz radio in DC is even worse --- less than half a station playing it; it's one of those amateur Pacifica stations that spends most of its day reliving the glory days of the past civil rights/antiwar/whatever protest movements with talk shows and such, and just a few hours a day actually playing jazz but usually with a senile or half-stoned DJ blabbing during the songs about all sorts of nonsense, and rarely remembering to announce who just played what.
I don't know what the answer is. I've been having thoughts lately of selling all my instruments and getting totally out of music -- there's very little joy in Musicville these days.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2013-09-05 00:27
Dave, I feel ya (as I understand the young people are fond of saying these days). But the declining number of niche radio stations (jazz, classical, country) has more to do with the overheated, overcompetitive, make-a-buck-at-all-costs nature of the radio market today (and the audience demographic it seeks in the process), than it does with any declining popularity of a certain flavor or kind of music. In that sense disappearing radio formats are a lousy measure of whether a music is declining in popularity, or the populace is "dumbing-down", and instead (I would contend) a really good measure of whether the FCC (which is supposed to be regulating our "public" airwaves on the "public's" behalf) is doing its job or not, in terms of fostering diversity of programming. But that's another rant for another time!
On an earlier post: corporations don't "advertise" per se, but they do sponsor, and they use their sponsorship to burnish their corporate image both to the public, and to their existing and prospective clients (giving tickets away as business gifts, and so on). As such, they're not necessarily as interested merely in the "asses in the seats" count, as they are in certain demographics of asses in the seats. But corporations have to be wooed to sponsor symphonies; their range of brand-burnishing options includes things like yacht races, jazz festivals, Formula I, tennis matches et cetera, and it's the orchestra board's, and president's, JOB to get corporate sponsorships in THEIR door. Do corporations care if us "nobodies" making mid-to-lower-middle-class salaries come to concerts less often? Maybe, maybe not. (Got any figures that tie a decline in corporate sponsorship of Symphony X to a decline in the general public's attendance? Let's see it.) I'm frankly not conversant with the donor distribution among corporate sponsorships/donations versus single private donors, or foundations. They're all crucial, but it is the orchestra management and board that get them to fork over the bucks.
But, if the musicians in an orchestra are doing their job, showing up and turning in outstanding performances, and the orchestra is still losing audience, my point is: is an orchestra's management up to the task of marketing the orchestra in tough times, or are they merely reflexively pointing at the musicians and saying "THEY cost too much money! THAT's the problem!"
Sure, declining audience factors in there somewhere. But I'm tired of people throwing mulligans to orchestra boards and managements, like "aw, times are tough, what ya gonna do?" Well, this ain't the special olympics for orchestra management! They don't get credit merely for "trying hard." The question is, do they deliver? That would be question No. 1 on my mind, when I hear orchestra pay cuts being proposed. Ed Palanker's commentary on the BSO's recent renegotiations were very informative, and persuasive (at least to me) that sometimes, orchestra managements ARE doing what they can (correct me if I'm wrong, Ed). Whereas, the debacle in Philadelphia and the current horrendous situation in Minnesota are clear examples of incompetence, mismanagement and worse, everywhere BUT onstage.
Finally, I'll end this over-long (!!!) post with a question for everyone: you say you used to go to symphony concerts, but you stopped? What would it take to get you to go again? Specifically, what would have to be different? I'm genuinely curious about this; I have no idea what kinds of responses anyone would have.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2013-09-05 05:21
In general, the past several decades have seen a crescendo of faster and faster pace, and greater and greater consumption, like none experienced in the world. "Slow" arts, just like "slow" products that are hand crafted and more durable, have lost out to mass-produced and easily-accessible alternatives. I predict a correction of sorts in the coming decades. Even quality acts in more "popular" genres are overpopulated and underpublicized, and the immense abundance of things to do makes everything less special, and much is lost in the noise. Whether it's due to lack of natural resources or cultural burnout, I think society will rebound, at least partially, to a more thoughtful and connected arrangement.
Until then, it's gonna be rough.
To answer your last question, Doug, I stopped going to symphony concerts a few years ago. I burned out on the genre, and also had been to too many phoned-in and/or uninspired performances. Plus, I got a bit wound up and ODed on music in general, and have taken a hiatus altogether from musical activities. At most, I'll stop and listen for a good long while to a subway performer playing Bach cello suites.
To get me back in the hall, it would have to be meaningful. There would have to be some unifying spark, some buzz, something to make it a compelling activity. I live 20 minutes by subway from one of the world's greatest orchestras, and I have no compulsion to see them play.
Part of it may also be why I have little interest in seeing sporting events. Each team, when it needs new members, pulls from the greatest athletes of the world, making the makeup of its team more a matter of happenstance than of any feature of its location.
The NY Phil right now features some of the same guest artists I've heard play with the LA Phil. Its members come from all over the world, and typically moved to New York once they landed the job (or maybe for school). If it had local flavor, was primarily of home-grown New York talent, I would be a lot more interested to hear them play. OR if, being from a big city, it stood out as one of the few orchestras with a broad base of far-off talent.
But there's none of that. Every orchestra, from New York to Minnesota to Los Angeles to Tucson, puts out wide-ranging calls and will typically hire the "best" musician who's available when the call goes out. They're all thoroughly interchangeable.
The other end of the spectrum is the local regional or community orchestra, which typically DOES have more local talent, but may be less compelling to hear in performance.
Otherwise, I would like a more positive atmosphere in the hall. There's a lot more "DO NOT" than there is "DO". Everyone, from the performers to the ushers to the blue-hairs to the hyper-educated twats to the managers, is constantly on pins and needles that something will go wrong and ruin the perfection of the event. A shift in paradigm to "let's see how much can go RIGHT and just how much we all can collectively enjoy this" would get me back.
Tell kids "you get to clap at the VERY end" instead of "DON'T CLAP IN THE MIDDLE" and they'll be excited all night... "Now?" "NOW??" "HOW DO I KNOW WHEN???"
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2013-09-05 14:17
@David
>I don't know what the answer is. I've been having thoughts lately of selling all my instruments and getting totally out of music -- there's very little joy in Musicville these days.
have you tried to work with kids? they are joy and they need someone like you. Most school systems have mentor/volunteer programs, you can volunteer to teach a class or work with school for organize a small performance.
Obviously it is not gonna solve immediate problems, but at least it would help to keep music alive for next generation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2013-09-05 18:36
@cyclopathic: Might be a good idea for some folks, but probably not for me.
(a) I don't have the spare time.
(b) I have three kids of my own, all of whom went through various instrumental musical studies (between them three violin attempts, one trombone attempt, and one sax attempt) and all of them eventually quit when they got too busy or found more interesting things to do. Clearly I don't know how to motivate kids to pursue music.
(c) Furthermore I don't have the patience to teach (anything to anybody).
Besides, I'm reminded of the generations of classical saxophonists who, to this day, have little or no repertoire to play and practically no audience to listen to them, but who instead grow up and do exactly what their teachers did --- teach the next generation of classical sax players who in turn will not have "real" gigs either. Maybe it's just time to let the whole thing go. Those of us who grew up using slide rules and tinkering with carburetors, we don't do those things anymore, do we?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-09-05 21:10
EEBaum said :- ( "In general, the past several decades have seen a crescendo of faster and faster pace, and greater and greater consumption, like none experienced in the world. "Slow" arts, just like "slow" products that are hand crafted and more durable, have lost out to mass-produced and easily-accessible alternatives. I predict a correction of sorts in the coming decades. Even quality acts in more "popular" genres are overpopulated and underpublicized, and the immense abundance of things to do makes everything less special, and much is lost in the noise. Whether it's due to lack of natural resources or cultural burnout, I think society will rebound, at least partially, to a more thoughtful and connected arrangement".)
Now that's a whole new slant on the subject that I hadn't thought of before EE and it sounds very plausible to me also.
David said :- ("I don't know what the answer is. I've been having thoughts lately of selling all my instruments and getting totally out of music -- there's very little joy in Musicville these days".)
Cheer up David. I don't know what age you are but just speaking for myself , I'm 69 next year and playing my Clarinets/ Oboe & Flute keeps the old grey matter stirred up and also I have a good relaxing time playing with my fellow musicians, amateurs all.
Then of course , there's the real quality time listening to my CDs.
Musical performance and listening to excellent performances on recordings are a vital pastime in my 'older' age.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2013-09-06 01:35
>Besides, I'm reminded of the generations of classical saxophonists who, to this day, have little or no repertoire to play and practically no audience to listen to them, but who instead grow up and do exactly what their teachers did --- teach the next generation of classical sax players who in turn will not have "real" gigs either.
gee that sounds worse then jazz clarinetist who doesn't play dixie.. sorry!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-09-09 13:46
David Spiegelthal wrote,
> As far as listening to classical music, we have exactly one classical music station in the Washington DC metro area and they are HORRIBLE. Endless Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and hardly ever anything more recent than Brahms, except when they get really BOLD!!!! and play some Rachmaninoff (which is OK you see, since he was a very conservative Romantic so his music sounds like it came from the 1800s anyway). And they got rid of the few good DJs they once had years ago, back even before the station (formerly WGMS) got new management and then were bought out by PBS.>
Although I agree with you that WETA plays way too many overly-familiar works on heavy rotation (and my pet peeve is that they keep featuring pianists and guitarists in works written for harpsichord!), I think this is too dark a view. Take a look at the web site, http://www.weta.org. I'm writing this message mid-morning on Monday, September 9. Yes, the station does have too much by the usual suspects on the program for today, but that's not the whole story. The first item after midnight was a concerto by Johann David Heinichen, and by noon, the station will have played the double concerto in Bb for clarinet and bassoon by Carl Stamitz (Eduard Brunner on clarinet, Klaus Thunemann on bassoon, Hans Stadlmair conducting the Munich Chamber Orchestra) and works by Ralph Vaughan Williams, Ottorino Respighi, Johan Halvorsen, Fritz Kreisler, Ignatz Pleyel, Rimsky-Korsakov (yes, he's one of the usual suspects, but the work in question is his Dubinushka), Giovanni Gabrieli, Johan Gottlieb Graun, François Courperin, Jan Krtitel Jiri Neruda, Aram Khachaturian, Franz Anton Hoffmeister and César Franck.
The DJs are a knowledgable group. Several play classical instruments. For instance, violinist and DJ Jean Inaba has been with the Maryland Symphony Orchestra since 1989. David Ginder plays piano and cello, and grew up in a home with a pipe organ. Substitute DJ Rich Kleinfeldt is a pro saxophone player. He was a soloist with the U.S. Army Band until 1983.
On Saturday, during our usual yard sale trek, my husband noticed an empty violin case for sale and asked the family whether someone plays violin. Well -- Mom plays piano and violin, a daughter in elementary school is learning cello and a daughter in middle school is learning viola. They chose cello and viola so they'd be more in demand than the more common violinists. The cello-player, helping out at the yard sale, talked with great enthusiasm about her instrument when we encouraged her. Her best friend, a girl who lives up the street, plays the drums. No, not in a rock band -- she's studying timpani. This was just some random conversation at a yard sale -- and not the first time it's happened.
I've found that among my own relatives and friends, it's easy to get the kids interested in classical music. Just play some. No need to preach about it. "Oh, here's something I love, and I'll bet you will, too!" It sells itself. I don't think all is lost as long as we keep our approach positive and don't give up.
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: FDF
Date: 2013-09-09 23:02
To add to the discussion of pay-cuts, layoffs, and the overall diminution of music is the problem of cuts in college and university music programs. Our local state university is considering a moratorium for the music department, because it is too costly to maintain on a faculty to student ratio. A moratorium means that the department cannot accept new majors, or one might say a slow death. Individual lessons on instruments is one of the most costly items, especially since there are so few student who play violin, cello, or bass. However, the most important part of the program is music education, a degree that sends teachers to the elementary and high schools. If the university program declines, so does music education in general.
Ironically, one of the reasons to keep music as part of the university is football. Who's going to play at halftime? Also, music is needed for commencement and other events. But, how do you justify a whole department that is going to teach students for jobs that barely exist and who will compete against students from more prestigious schools?
This means, of course, even graduates of excellent programs will find it more difficult to teach at the college or university level.
I apologize for the oversimplification of the problem, but hope that it is explained well enough to generate discussion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2013-09-10 20:19
It seems to me that the logical solution to private lessons in a situation like your local college faces is to engage adjunct faculty who are paid a fee per student credit hour. In addition to tuition, students who want private lessons pay a studio fee that covers the cost of lessons. If regular faculty want to give private lessons but don't have enough students to constitute a "course," they can be paid on an overload basis with the lessons not considered part of their normal teaching load.
I taught at one university that did not have a football team but did have Division 1 basketball. It also had a very small music program. For many years the student pep band (which typically had around 50 members) was actually run by the athletic department. They gave members $500 scholarships and hired the director and assistant director. This was a sore point with the music department because the athletic department had a larger music program than they did!
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
