 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2011-05-11 07:54
Interesting article.
On a more upbeat note (just to balance the sense of gloom):
Q. How do you kill a circus?
A. Go for the juggler.
(Credit [I think] to Jimmy Carr)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-05-11 12:16
There are some excellent points made in the article, which, though written almost eight years ago, sounds eerily up-to-date, indicating that the problems orchestras face didn't just come up suddenly and weren't caused solely by the financial crisis of 2007. One question it hints at but doesn't address is whether or not this is an American phenomenon and, if not, what is different in other societies (can government support be the only explanation?), many of which are going through the same financial straits as the U.S. or worse.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-05-11 12:32
I notice that this article, like most of the others I have seen on the topic, focuses pretty much exclusively of the revenue side of the equation. What I would like to see, for the sake of balance, is one that focuses on the cost side. How have orchestra cost structures changed over the years? What "projects" and commitments, undertaken during good times spell disaster when revenues fall because they leave the orchestra unable to adapt to a revenue crisis when it inevitably comes? Also, on the revenue side (but not really), why have record companies and the movie industry abandoned our major symphony orchestras?
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-05-11 13:01
>> Also, on the revenue side (but not really), why have record companies and the movie industry abandoned our major symphony orchestras?
>>
One arc of this vicious circle is that classical music recordings account for less than 1% of total CD sales in the USA. Fewer sales mean less incentive to make the recordings and promote them. Fewer recordings mean fewer reviews in other media. Fewer reviews mean fewer jobs for reviewers at a time of declining magazine and newspaper sales. (For instance, most of the critics for all the arts in the Washington Post are now freelance writers, not staff writers. The Post still reviews live concerts in the Washington, D. C. area, but rarely reviews a classical recording any more.) Fewer reviews mean less public awareness. Less awareness means fewer sales.
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: salzo
Date: 2011-05-11 14:26
">> Also, on the revenue side (but not really), why have record companies and the movie industry abandoned our major symphony orchestras?"
Because there is no demand for classical recordings.
Which would also explain the financial crisis of orchestras- the cost of an orchestra far outweighs the demand for such an institution.
Orchestras can run around looking for handouts, donations, and government subsidy, but at the end of the day, if no one wants to hear them, it isn't going to last.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2011-05-11 15:05
Symp[hony orchestra's simply have to make themselves more exciting for the general public, not just us educated musicians. Tomorrow, our Beloit/Janesville Symphony will be playing "Peter & the Wolf" for all of Beloits public school fifth graders. Two things have been done to make this childrens concert more understandable ane relevant. 1) all of the students have studied the story and instrument sounds in the general music classes, so most have some basic understanding regarding what they will be hearin "live". 2) one of our staff spent time with one general music class who wrote an original tune to accompany a student-produced video. Our director scored the tune for orchestra and we will be presenting the music and the video as part of this concert. It really makes the whole concert more meanfngful when some of their own are featured--in this case, a whole general music class and it's "film crew". The production lasts about 7y minutes, is quite elementary, musically, but will be a hit with the audience, I'm certain. Just our way of making an otherwise "boring" concert a little bit more exciting for our kids.
BTW--my clarinet solo's were flawless last eve in rehearsal (with my Forestone reeds, lol) Just hope I play as well when the hall is filled. "P&tW" with only one rehearsal, tomorrow at 8:45 am--wish me luck, y'all.......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-05-11 15:08
"Because there is no demand for classical recordings."
Yes, Naxos is obviously failing. That's why they only release around 30 new classical recordings each month. (Maybe their audiobook series subsidizes the classical side. ![[right]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie8.gif) ) Also Albany, BIS, CPO and Chandos, to name a few, each generally release around 5 recordings each month, like clockwork. And a substantial percentage of these releases involve orchestras. These numbers are small potatoes compared to pop and rock, of course. But there are numerous smaller labels that devote themselves to classical recordings that seem to be doing just fine. Care to guess at how many of their recordings involve "major" U.S. orchestras?
So what do Baltimore and Buffalo and Nashville have that Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, San Francisco, D.C. (and a few others I've overlooked) don't? Aside from Eddie Palanker, of course. (Eddie's great but, with all due respect, I don't think he's the primary reason Naxos records Baltimore.)
Best regards,
jnk
Who may be treading dangerous waters here but perhaps will need them to help put out the flames that are likely to follow soon.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-11 15:46
The classical scene has inadvertently constructed an intricate network of safeguards for itself to remain in a static glorified museum state. Performances have much in common with a civil war reenactment or, dare I say, a Renaissance Faire. Great for enthusiasts, but suffering a disconnect from society at large.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-05-11 16:08
Holland's points are all valid in my mind.
I agree that cost structure will be an issue going forward and much of the Chapter 11 and 7 filings we are witnessing in the industry are a testimony to the changes that will come to most, if not all, orchestras primarily in terms of pension and health benefits.
More importantly, like some have mentioned earlier, it is the small community orchestras that really are serving as the model for what the future will entail for the American orchestral musician namely:
> more community based services
> less elitism and more connection with the community through appearances outside of just playing music
> salary that reflects a middle class lifestyle in the community which is supplemented by teaching and casual work
> pit work such as ballet and opera for most cities
My guess is that in the end, only 10 major cities (if that) will be able to provide a full time contract to their orchestra.
The rest will provide work that will have to be supplemented - pretty much how orchestral life was before the Ford Foundation grants in 1962.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-05-11 16:29
CC -- No, they do not record any of the "Big 5" U.S. symphonies and, really only recently, have they done much with any U.S. symphony. Why do you think that's so? (Hint: Check your table.)
Dileep -- I think your observations are right on target except that I'm not sure there will even be 10 without some creative problem-solving. In retrospect, do you think the Ford Foundation Grants may have contributed to this problem?
Alex -- How do orchestral concerts differ in structure from, e.g., live theater or a movie? Are those art forms disconnected from society?
But, from my perspective, you're all still focusing on the wrong side of the equation. (I'm not saying that I don't think declining revenues are part of the problem. I'm suggesting they may not be the entire problem. Certainly, with unlimited revenue, any orchestra could do anything they want. But unlimited revenue is not realistic.)
Here's another question that occurs to me since you still want to focus on the revenue side. Can an orchestra have too much revenue?
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-11 17:40
Theater, to some degree does, but not as much.
The problem with orchestral music is that it's all, well, old. Even the "new" stuff is old. Now I'm not saying that old is bad. In the case of orchestral music, old is, in fact, awesome. However, old is static. Old does not reflect a dynamic atmosphere, but rather a museum.
You see mainstream theatrical shows that challenge what it means to be theater, that change how theater happens, or add new conceptual frameworks. You DEFINITELY see movies that do this. There are movies that have come out that, after that movie came out, obsoleted the possibility of certain other ways of doing movies. Like romantic music obsoleted classical, back when orchestral music was a more immediate endeavor.
But classical music, over the past 100 years, has evolved a framework that prevents this. That is, any newly-written music that provides significant enough challenge to how music happens is ignored by the musical establishment. Look at how long it's taken for minimalism, a concept that took off in the 60s, to be common in concert halls. There is music going on in experimental circles right now that will take decades to have any discernible impact on the music you see an orchestra play.
"But it'll make it there, and the music will gain variety," one may say. However, the problem with this is that, by that point, the composers are dead or have moved on to other things, and this music too becomes something historical, isolated. It never gets a chance for things to build on each other.
Pieces that are less challenging make their way in sooner, but are, well, less challenging, and more borne of the current concert hall atmosphere.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-12 05:55
The transitory periods from, for example, classical to romantic were long. However, romantic music was being played when romantic music was being written. The transitions were reflected in the orchestral programming as they happened, not 40 years after the fact. Very little of what happens in orchestral settings today reflects any activity by any composers that are in their exploratory prime. Once they have an established style that has been thoroughly vetted and codified, you'll find it, but by that time anything they write tends to be an extension of what they've written before.
It's like if you only ever heard a rock band once they were doing reunion tours.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: salzo
Date: 2011-05-12 11:19
Jack wrote:
"Because there is no demand for classical recordings."
Yes, Naxos is obviously failing. That's why they only release around 30 new classical recordings each month. (Maybe their audiobook series subsidizes the classical side. ) Also Albany, BIS, CPO and Chandos, to name a few, each generally release around 5 recordings each month, like clockwork. And a substantial percentage of these releases involve orchestras. These numbers are small potatoes compared to pop and rock, of course
Let me correct my initial comment: "Because there is a LILLIPUTIAN demand for classical recordings"- there, that is better.
THe difference between pop and classical is that pop pays their bills, and has a lot left over with their recordings and performances- classical does not. Classical cant even pay the bills, much less make a profit.
You skate over this significant difference with your "small potatoes" comment, as if it is barely relevant-but that is the issue in a nutshell.
Post Edited (2011-05-12 11:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2011-05-12 12:15
EEBaum makes some excellent points. Another factor to consider is royalties. It's cheaper for an orchestra to perform a Beethoven symphony than it is to perform a more modern work and pay royalties. Most of George Gershwin's music is still under copyright protection.
On a related topic, here's an interesting article about music used for television.
http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=38
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2011-05-12 12:25
Most orchestras have ASCAP and BMI licenses that cover all royalties, so this is not really an issue.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2011-05-12 14:12
Rmk54, thanks for pointing this out. I must confess that I don't know all the ins and outs of royalties and ASCAP and BMI licenses.
Still, I'm wondering if the royalty question could be an issue for community orchestras where there isn't a lot of extra money floating around. I recall reading once that ASCAP bills orchestras somewhere around 1% of box office receipts for the previous season. I'm not sure what BMI charges. This probably isn't a problem for major orchestras, but I'm guessing that some community orchestras and bands either try to fly under the radar or perform only older public domain works.
Here's a link to comments from an orchestra conductor (I'm guessing he conducts community orchestras) who complains about paying BMI $800 for yearly user fees plus an additional $300 for the performance of a new work.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1234453&cid=28015969
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-05-12 15:10
salzo wrote:
> THe difference between pop and classical is that pop pays their
> bills, and has a lot left over with their recordings and
> performances- classical does not. Classical cant even pay the
> bills, much less make a profit.
Even in its heyday, the profits from pop recording have always subsidized the classical output. One difference today may be that the ownership of the recording companies is no longer centered in the hands of single entrepreneurs but of large corporate conglomerates whose boards are unwilling to plow profits from pop music back into classical "for the sake of culture."
Karl
Post Edited (2011-05-12 19:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-05-12 18:23
There is a report from the RIAA that shows, over the period from 1999 to 2008, classical recordings accounted for around 2% to 3% of total recording sales revenues in the U.S. (a virtual tie with jazz, BTW). Rock accounted for around a quarter to a third of the revenues during this period. Rap/Hip Hop, R&B/Urban and Country each tended to fall in the 10 - 13% range with Pop having close, but very slightly smaller percentages. In 1999, the total revenue from recording sales amounted to just under US$ 14.6 billion. So Classical's 3.5% for that year would have been over US$ 500 million, not exactly chump change. By 2008, however, total revenues had fallen to just under US$ 8.5 so Classical's 1.9% was only around US$161 million. And other reports, whose numbers differ somewhat from RIAA's but are in the ballpark demonstrate that the decline continues. (You can see the RIAA report here:
http://76.74.24.142/CA052A55-9910-2DAC-925F-27663DCFFFF3.pdf
I don't think there can be any question that limited demand, particularly coupled with a change in management philosophy at the major record labels has resulted in a significant cutbacks in the number of classical recordings these labels are producing. But, as Karl has pointed out, Classical sales have always been a small percentage of the total, even in the Classical heyday of Bernstein, Ormandy, Szell, Reiner, Munch/Leinsdorf. Also, a large number of smaller independent labels have popped up to fill the void.
An article on Hillary Hahn's topping Billboard with sales of perhaps 1,000 copies includes a quote from Alex Miller, general manager of Sony Masterworks, to the effect that "The classical charts have always been looked at as in the 3-percenter club." But my question wasn't, "Why aren't many classical recordings being produced?" It was, specifically, "Why don't the "Big 5" have any share in recordings that aren't being produced?
BTW, it turns out that I was wrong about that assertion -- but not really. Under Christoph Eschenbach, the Philadelphia Orchestra actually had a recording contract with Ondine Records and produced a handful of recordings during his short tenure there. However, the contract was apparently quite different from the contracts of earlier decades. The recordings are all live concert recordings and the musicians own them. I can only speculate but I would expect that Ondine agreed to record the concerts, produce the CD's and market them under its label in exchange for a commission and perhaps a recording fee. For orchestras that choose not to produce their own recordings, this may be the new model. Pittsburgh may have a similar contract with PentaTone.
The first CD in the Philadelphia series (2006) signaled the end of a 10-year recording hiatus for the orchestra. So the mid-90s (I actually thought it might be a little earlier) seems to be the point in time where the Big 5 (and other major U.S. orchestras) departed from the recording scene. I have to agree, Karl, that the change in management philosophy you identify was probably a very big factor. I think there was another contributing factor as well.
On a different note, as former treasurer of a community orchestra, I concur with Alex's point that the cost of sheet music is a far greater determining factor in repertoire selection than royalties. All of the community orchestras I have played with have paid ASCAP and BMI fees. The amount we paid was not determined by the music we performed.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-05-13 03:09
LOTS of disinformation regarding the music business (esp with regards to Classical music) on this thread. I would urge most readers to ignore what has been said. I don't have the time nor the desire to defend or take positions. Would urge those that are really interested in understanding the economic issues to read Harold Vogel, then Baumol (now at Rand Institute) and Arthur Brooks (former prin horn, Barcelona, now a leading economist). Also recommend Orpheus in the New World by Phillip Hart.
@ Jack Kissinger:
If you are old enough to understand the impact of the Ford Foundation grants in 1962, then you will understand how it changed the orchestral industry. Up till then, no orchestra had a 52 week season. NYPO contract was the first. Boston was not even unionized in 1962!!!!
Then, all orchestras had to have 52 week seasons. Not possible but boards caved in to union demands thinking that they could make up shortfalls.
They could via large donors that really appreciated Classical music and had a connection beyond seeing their pic in the MON am society column.
No longer.
The wages are too high for any one or two donors to sustain orchestras at these levels. So either the orchestra has a plethora of large corporate sponsors (who get their name on everything) or they die.
Plus Baumol's Cost Syndrome still holds true so there is no efficiencies to be gained via technological advances.
Too bad Bill Gates and Warren Buffet didn't play in their school orchestras.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-05-13 04:51
Americans prefer rap to classical. Another symptom of the failure of the US education system.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-05-13 06:01
Dileep:
Bill Gates is too busy donating his fortune to cure diseases in the third world. Cut the dude some slack.
Bob:
I prefer Disneyland to the Museum of Natural History. Do you fault the educational system for that?
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-05-13 07:06
Interesting article in the Guardian regarding statistics of orchestral programming in 2010:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2011/jan/24/musical-numbers-bachtrack-modern-classical
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-05-13 22:34
@Alex,
I wasn't dissing Bill Gates. He has and is doing much with his well earned wealth.
It's just that in the old days, when rich white people gave money to nonprofits, they didn't worry about AIDS, or Africa, poverty, climate change, or animal rights, or even the environment for that matter.
They gave in large amounts to the local orchestra, the university, the main art museum in town, and the opera.
The New Money now looks at solving problems on a global basis or looks at solving huge problems that are systemic such as inner city schools.
I think orchestras are not looked at as being vital or important enough to give in huge amounts anymore.
And perhaps given some of the problems I have mentioned they aren't.
Post Edited (2011-05-13 22:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2011-05-16 15:18
Perhaps therefore a bit more local giving by the megacorps might do everyone a bit of good. Make them a bit less 'faceless', and perhaps even bring a spark to the inner cities.
Thing is, 'sponsored by' has come to mean 'tainted' in some circles, which isn't going to encourage either side of the partnership. And I seem to remember when it wasn't, when seeing the brand logo was looked on as outreach, a gesture of solidarity, not cynical advertising. A bit of rebuilding of the bridges between patrons and the arts seems in order.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
