If It’s Broke, Don’t Fix It

And here we are.  Can we finally have a revolutionary discussion?  Or are we going to pretend, in the face of all contrary evidence, that the system still works?

The Minnesota Orchestra absorbed two body blows late this week in quick succession. First, their brilliant Principal Clarinet Burt Hara was offered the Associate Principal Clarinet position at the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and it must be said that Burt’s departure would be an outsized and dramatic loss. Burt has been a star with this orchestra for 25 years, choosing to live and play in Minnesota when he could have had just about any job anywhere. An orchestra is supposed to be more than the sum of its parts, but Burt’s playing has perhaps been the most signature sound of this last generation of the M.O.

The next day we discovered Osmo Vänskä’s line in the sand. The response by M.O. Board chair Jon Campbell can only be summed up using that most expressive language Yiddish – “Meh.” If that’s the Board’s response to the most public artistic figure in the organization then what little shred of hope that they had the artistic health of the organization in mind has fluttered away in this cold and nasty Minnesota spring. These twin salvos have actually prodded the editorial board of the Star Tribune, Minnesota’s largest paper, to get off the fence and pass the prodding on to Governor Mark Dayton.  The current Board of the M.O. is getting pounded in the press and the blogosphere, making it clear that the musicians have won the PR battle.  Actually, it was never much of a battle – it has been a slaughter.  The collateral damage, though, is where this war hurts the most.

Any honest assessment of the nonprofit governance system in place to manage orchestras, subject of constant criticism and ridicule from both within and without the business, must conclude that said system has finally and spectacularly collapsed.  One of the great orchestras of this hemisphere, if not the world, is on the brink of complete ruin due to the intransigence of a bunkered few working in lockstep with someone whose managerial skills could only be termed maladroit, and whose “vision” for this orchestra is at best short-sighted and at worse borderline nefarious. The damage already done to the Minnesota Orchestra legacy is legion and will take decades to undo, even if by some miracle everything would be settled today. But considering the position of the Board I have few doubts that they would be willing to take this mighty ship down with them.

This “stewardship” of the M.O. by its Board of Directors should be considered felonius. At least in the for-profit world there would be some possible redress, though recent history would tell us that just because you intentionally run a company into the ground don’t expect to be held accountable for it. But leaving that aside – the facts are that the Minnesota Orchestra is now almost irretrievably in a state of total collapse. No other orchestra of its size and stature has been in these waters, and these waters are very deep and the ship is sinking. Even if Governor Dayton manages to broker a peace settlement (and yes, I am aware that I am using the nomenclature of war) we would be left with a deeply wounded orchestra missing many of its key players, a nuclear level toxic atmosphere between musicians, Board, and management, an embittered Music Director, and a community who rightly feels that their very proud legacy has been betrayed. It is hard to see how any orchestra could survive, let alone actually thrive, in this atmosphere.

Maybe this is the one situation where it would be possible to jettison the current orchestra governance model in favor of a realigned structure intrinsically different from anything tried before in this hemisphere. It would take tremendous guts and goodwill by all involved to make it work, but as Socrates so eloquently put it –

“The secret of change is to focus all of your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new.”

What must first happen is a frank conversation about what the current and future needs of an organization such as the Minnesota Orchestra would be, what the needs/desires of the various constituencies are, and how we could design a new governing model that will address those needs/desires while fostering artistic growth and fiscal stability?

The first question I would ask is “what are the needs/desires of the various constituencies?” I would like to start with the most important constituency of all –

The People

With all due respect to my musical colleagues it is The People who come to hear your concerts, The People who support your organization, The People who believe in having a fabulous artistic endeavor in the community in which they live, who are the most important constituency in this fight. As a general rule, if it is good for your audience it is good for the organization (there are exceptions to every rule but those exceptions tend to be fewer and much farther between then we might want to admit). In every city there are many, many thousands of people who might not ever attend one of your concerts who never-the-less believe that having outstanding arts institutions like the Minnesota Orchestra is a sign of a healthy community.

What do The People want? They want a healthy orchestra, to be sure, but they also want a say in how the organization functions and its long-term health. You would never see all the “Save Our [insert orchestra name here]” organizations if the people weren’t interested in contributing. But as the model stands today most of the people have no voice in the governance of their beloved institution.

The Musicians

This should seem self-evident but it still needs to be said: the musicians are the the next critical constituency in this fight. These are artists, and despite the pejorative connotations that word has in some segments of our society for many of us it is a worthy goal in life to share your artistic talent for the delight of others.

What do The Musicians want? Boiled down to the lowest common denominator what any musician wants is a decent job where, on occasion, you get that rare chance to fill someone’s heart with joy. They crave a healthy orchestra, but they also want a say in how the organization functions and its long-term health. Everyone on earth wants some say over how they must manage their lives. It is necessary for one’s self-respect, and without self-respect you cannot create great music.

The Philanthropists

Please note I do not refer to this constituency as the Board of Directors. This part of the conversation is about constituencies, not about governance. Like any Music Director/conductor I have had the opportunity to hobnob with many people who choose to support arts institutions like the M.O., and in most instances I have found their calculus to be surprisingly simple: healthy arts institutions are the sign of a healthy community, and since they have the means to make a difference they consider it their civic duty to do so. Without them none of the great arts institutions would have built. Not one. For decades the Great Philanthropists were the only game in town when it came to underwriting the expenditures of the arts world, but the rise of the middle class over the past 60 years is what has kept people going to those artistic endeavors. People pay real money for tickets these days. They budget for them, and they treasure those experiences.

What do The Philanthropists want? They want a healthy orchestra, but they also want a say in how the organization functions and its long-term health. It’s only human to want your voice to be heard if you have gone to the expense of donating your time, money, and energy.

The Management

I was hesitant to call management a full fledged constituency in this fight for a number of reasons but then I started looking at this issue from another perspective. Outside of an Executive Director (or the equivalent) there are usually dozens of people in an organization the size of the M.O. who draw a paycheck yet never appear on stage in concert! Stage crew, librarians, personnel support, fundraisers, P.R., etc., etc. I would argue in the strongest possible terms that these people have a vested interest in ensuring that the organization functions at the highest possible level of efficiency. Their jobs depend on it. And for many of them it is a labor of love. There aren’t a lot of folks getting rich in Arts Management these days.

What does The Management want? They want a healthy orchestra, but they also want a say in how the organization functions and its long-term health. Working at an arts organization is hard work. There a long hours, low pay, and a high rate of turnover. How can we make it easier for management to function and to attract and retain top quality people?

Analysis

By now the trend should be obvious – every constituency wants a healthy orchestra, and everybody wants a voice in how that organization functions. Everyone wants a say in what the Minnesota Orchestra is, what it does, and how it does it. Everyone wants rights, but with rights come responsibility. That is the critical word – responsibility. After 20 years running around this business I have seen a few universal trends:

1. Other than measuring ticket sales and the level of small donations, most orchestras look at The People as the Victorian child who should be seen, not heard. We refer to “butts in seats” but it’s a bit more complicated than that. In the for-profit world you sell a product. In the non-profit world you should be growing a passionate and devoted constituency who will fight to the bitter end to ensure your organization survives. Why shouldn’t we harness the energy and goodwill or those people who have already drunk the Kool-Aid?

We must give The People more rights pertaining to the governance of the Minnesota Orchestra, and The People must embrace their responsibility to ensure that this orchestra is fiscally stable.

2.  To quote a musician colleague – “There is a small yet extremely vocal group of musicians in every orchestra who believe that their responsibility begins and ends with showing up and playing their instrument, and more often than not the rest of their energy goes into complaining about how management or the Board is trying to screw them over.” I cannot see how this mindset will be a successful one in the reality that is the 21st Century orchestra. In the case of the M.O. I’m pretty sure that the first part of that quote has already been shattered, as the musicians have done a brilliant job organizing concerts and successfully working social media. I would bet that the learning curve has been both steep and very enlightening. So if the musicians want more control then why not?

We must give The Musicians more rights pertaining to the governance of the Minnesota Orchestra, and The Musicians must embrace their responsibility to ensure that this orchestra functions in the most efficient manner possible. 

3.  The time has come to separate philanthropy from governance. “He who pays the piper calls the tune” only goes so far, and to be honest the amount that the M.O. Board (or most Boards) raises on a yearly basis is dwarfed by the twin income streams of 1) ticket sales; and 2) donations by non-board members, corporations, and foundations. Yet it is the Board, alone of all that constituencies, that is solely tasked with governance. Board members are frequently recruited for their philanthropic prowess, or for their connections to those who have money, and then they are confronted with the concept of running a large non-profit. From a for-profit point of view the non-profit world makes very little sense, and some of the funniest conversations I have ever had have been with Board members desperately trying to understand how non-profits manage to exist, let alone function. Instead of tasking The Philanthropist with running the organization, how about relieving them of that responsibility and asking them to focus on what they do best – philanthropy?

We must redefine the relationship between The Philanthropists and the Minnesota Orchestra. The Philanthropists should be tasked with the responsibility of fundraising for the organization without the burden of governance.

4. The time has come to stop using management as the bulwark between the twin competing constituencies of the Board and the musicians.  Management should be incentivized and empowered to work for the maximum efficiency of orchestra, and not used to flog the other constituency in a labor atmosphere that should have been left in the 1950s.  After all, this job is hard enough, why make it harder?

We must make it easier for The Management to present concerts, pursue new artistic endeavors, and provide for the day-to-day operation of the Minnesota Orchestra.  It should be acknowledged that The Management is a constituency as important as any other.

Conclusion

It is time to move on with the long overdue task of finding a new orchestral governance model suitable for the 21st Century.  In these days of 3-D printers, social media, and home HD entertainment it makes little sense to try and run a large, personnel heavy, non-profit institution by the rules and regulations of the McCarthy era.  The world has changed too much for that approach to have the necessary flexibility to succeed.

It’s broke.  Why bother trying to fix it?  Throw it out. When I moved into my house in 1995 I discovered that my laboring clothes dryer was from 1951.  That poor dryer could barely get above 80 degrees (fahrenheit, I must add) and it did not take me long to have a new dryer delivered and installed by my local large appliance store. I firmly believe that the Minnesota Orchestra is in that same boat. Let us see if all those who share a love and passion for the mighty Minnesota manage to create a new and more flexible governance model and get back on the road to prosperity.

Next Post: Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue State

20 thoughts on “If It’s Broke, Don’t Fix It”

  1. Letter to the editor in this morning’s Strib calling out the Board chair for his cavalier and annoying response to Vanska’s letter. Haven’t had time to read your whole blog but from past experience I can only assume you to be on pooint — indeed has hit the bull’s eye.

  2. Thoughtful and authoritative critique, Bill. Thanks for taking the time to cogitate and get it on paper. I love your new model. When can we get started?

  3. Here’s some more Yiddish for Jon Campbell – “Chutzpah” – as in killing your orchestra and then throwing yourself on the mercy of bankruptcy court because you are no longer economically sustainable.

  4. But, what’s the solution? Is there a model for this new business plan? Are there any other orchestras finding success with it? I ask these questions out of sheer frustration at what is happening at orchestras around this country. If anyone has examples, please share them.

    • JJ, some thoughts: (1) *political will* for example the combination of Peter Lougheed/Pierre Trudeau which had arts-Alberta thriving in the 80s or now, in Russia, Putin-Gergiev with RNO + Marinsky2 theatre both fully funded (and I am not defending VP i.e. Free Pussy Riot) and (2) programming conservatism at orchestras which has us sitting through Beethoven5 one too many times because what about DukeE, Finzi, Shorter, Delius, EJ Moeran, Rafe, Resphigi and many others etc. because those responsible do not know what to do and are scared sh**tless etc. including the Maestros and (3) the nuts and bolts of the music itself: i.e. for one example: the percussion section (antiquated in ways)(a whole long discussion)(I`m not aware historically of any projects involving Elvin/Tony but at least now we see Lang Lang with Herbie etc.not that they are percs but…)(and Kent re: Brandford)

  5. BILL: first, a quick congratulations on all your success. we met at nemc in maine and again at chautauqua after i finished juilliard. Odin Rathnam shared your piece with me. thanks for your words. the idiocy of this situation would almost be astonishing were it not for the season of fascism in the uSSA. one can only hope that the plutocrats are put down like rabid dogs and quickly, to be frank.

  6. The missives we’ve received from the board are that the musicians have not presented a counter-proposal; what aren’t they telling us?

  7. Mr. Eddins, thank you for this post. I think you have nailed the problem and possible solution, not only at the MN Orchestra but at arts organizations across the US–a changed governance model. Too much power and “ownership” currently sits with executive leaders and a small number of board members and too little (none at all in some cases) with “the people”, “the artists” and “the staff”. Candidly, I wonder about how best to involve “the philanthropists”. When board members are the largest donors to an organization, as you suggest, it seems they can accrue an unhealthy amount of power-not by using outright coercion but through a much subtler process that begins with the sense of others around the table that if you want money from the philanthropists you have to keep them happy (so their opinions are sometimes given much more weight than those of others). What you are proposing is a balance of power among these stakeholders. If it could be achieved I think it would, indeed, be revolutionary.

    • By far the most accurate, informative and concise analysis yet. Thank you Bill Eddins for your insight based on your experience and intelligence.

  8. Please note that the following ideas may appear at first glance to be pretty low-level, and perhaps even petty, but I sincerely believe that it’s the totality of all these small ideas, taken in context with the heartbreaking possibility of losing a national artistic treasure like the Minnesota Orchestra, that is likely to make as much difference as the so-called big ideas that get all the press – the pay cuts, the political posturing and name-calling, and the assigning of blame without an adequate amount of verifiable evidence. In that light, I hope these ideas will be given their due consideration.

    Orchestra players could allow some of their individual practice time to be video-taped with the intention of giving school children and audience members alike the opportunity to gain a greater knowledge and awareness of what it takes to become a world-class orchestra musician, as well as why daily practice remains a crucial part of every professional musician’s life. In doing this, students and patrons will begin to understand the truly full-time status that every musician in the Minnesota Orchestra (and every other world-class ensemble in the world) must be willing to maintain in order to ensure that they will always be able to perform at the excruciatingly high standard that is expected of this great orchestra.

    Orchestra players could visit schools in small ensembles to fill out their unused services. This would apply particularly to those instruments that are least busy, i.e. harp, tuba, contrabassoon. These ensembles would not only perform, they’d also make an effort to get instruments in the hands of students who might ordinarily be unlikely to ever have the opportunity to try out (or even hold) an orchestral instrument.

    Basically, the goal of these and many other hands-on ideas is to alter the all-too-common misconception that world-class musicians are somehow over-paid or working too little for the amount they are paid. A crucial part of this message would include an honest and transparent discussion about the reason musicians are members of the AFM and why they need to engage in collective bargaining to ensure the quality of their performances is undiminished. Again, it is the many misperceptions surrounding this issue that cause public perception of the current contract negotiations to become so negative. Giving people ample amounts of clear and easy-to-understand information can only serve to improve the situation for both sides.

    Lastly, by explaining to the public in detail about the entire audition process faced by this and every major symphony orchestra musician, patrons will gain a greater understanding of why the Minnesota Orchestra must remain one of the highest-paid orchestras in the world. Musicians all agree that cities with a significant amount of corporate participation in fundraising will be best able to afford the expense of housing a world-class orchestra. In other words, nobody would ever argue that just because a fine orchestra like, for instance, the Ann Symphony, which basically performs the very same role as the Minnesota Orchestra, should be paid an equivalent per-service rate. So there’s a very good reason that the highest-paid orchestra in the US is the Chicago Symphony: the city of Chicago houses the corporate headquarters of many of this country’s biggest and most prosperous corporations. That, and that alone, is the reason that the Chicago Symphony has been able to gradually build such a world-renowned reputation. It’s certainly not the case that the children of Chicago somehow deserve to have greater access to a world-class orchestra than the children in Ann Arbor. It’s just the reality of the system in which the professional orchestra paradigm currently finds itself. That said, Minneapolis is another city which houses great corporate (and, not coincidentally, philanthropic) wealth, and this has enabled the Minnesota Orchestra to develop itself into the cultural treasure that it has. But when the economy went south recently, the musicians of the orchestra, like the players of our professional sports teams, should not be asked to take a huge pay cut – using an assumption that just because it’s a non-profit “charity”, it’s somehow more understandable to consider cutting the arts as an acceptable means of necessary austerity measures.

    More to come…

    • When I was growing up, the members of the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra came to my school every year. The string quartet, the wind quintet, other groups. Every year. They also used those visits to spot future talent. They were integral to our community. And I hope they are today. They need to form a new organization and put the management out of their misery.

  9. This was written because of the terrible work stoppage that is plaguing the Minnesota Orchestra (and its audiences), but it can be applied to basically any orchestra. It comes from my heart, a heart which was broken after the orchestra with which I performed for 13 years (the Florida Philharmonic) folded – exactly ten years ago this month.

    Please note that the following ideas may appear at first glance to be pretty low-level, and perhaps even petty, but I sincerely believe that it’s the totality of all these small ideas, taken in context with the heartbreaking possibility of losing a national artistic treasure like the Minnesota Orchestra, that is likely to make as much difference as the so-called big ideas that get all the press – the pay cuts, the political posturing and name-calling, and the assigning of blame without an adequate amount of verifiable evidence. In that light, I hope these ideas will be given their due consideration.

    Orchestra players could allow some of their individual practice time to be video-taped with the intention of giving school children and audience members alike the opportunity to gain a greater knowledge and awareness of what it takes to become a world-class orchestra musician, as well as why daily practice remains a crucial part of every professional musician’s life. In doing this, students and patrons will begin to understand the truly full-time status that every musician in the Minnesota Orchestra (and every other world-class ensemble in the world) must be willing to maintain in order to ensure that they will always be able to perform at the excruciatingly high standard that is expected of this great orchestra.

    Orchestra players could visit schools in small ensembles to fill out their unused services. This would apply particularly to those instruments that are least busy, i.e. harp, tuba, contrabassoon. These ensembles would not only perform, they’d also make an effort to get instruments in the hands of students who might ordinarily be unlikely to ever have the opportunity to try out (or even hold) an orchestral instrument.

    Basically, the goal of these and many other hands-on ideas is to alter the all-too-common misconception that world-class musicians are somehow over-paid or working too little for the amount they are paid. A crucial part of this message would include an honest and transparent discussion about the reason musicians are members of the AFM and why they need to engage in collective bargaining to ensure the quality of their performances is undiminished. Again, it is the many misperceptions surrounding this issue that cause public perception of the current contract negotiations to become so negative. Giving people ample amounts of clear and easy-to-understand information can only serve to improve the situation for both sides.

    Lastly, by explaining to the public in detail about the entire audition process faced by this and every major symphony orchestra musician, patrons will gain a greater understanding of why the Minnesota Orchestra must remain one of the highest-paid orchestras in the world. Musicians all agree that cities with a significant amount of corporate participation in fundraising will be best able to afford the expense of housing a world-class orchestra. In other words, nobody would ever argue that just because a fine orchestra like, for instance, the Ann Symphony, which basically performs the very same role as the Minnesota Orchestra, should be paid an equivalent per-service rate. So there’s a very good reason that the highest-paid orchestra in the US is the Chicago Symphony: the city of Chicago houses the corporate headquarters of many of this country’s biggest and most prosperous corporations. That, and that alone, is the reason that the Chicago Symphony has been able to gradually build such a world-renowned reputation. It’s certainly not the case that the children of Chicago somehow deserve to have greater access to a world-class orchestra than the children in Ann Arbor. It’s just the reality of the system in which the professional orchestra paradigm currently finds itself. That said, Minneapolis is another city which houses great corporate (and, not coincidentally, philanthropic) wealth, and this has enabled the Minnesota Orchestra to develop itself into the cultural treasure that it has. But when the economy went south recently, the musicians of the orchestra, like the players of our professional sports teams, should not be asked to take a huge pay cut – using an assumption that just because it’s a non-profit “charity”, it’s somehow more understandable to consider cutting the arts as an acceptable means of necessary austerity measures.

    More to come…

    • Hi Steve, I have found out that there was grant money for education programs which went unused during the lockout, and evidently it’s been turned back to the giver (this was just in the news). Also, as I learned from Song of the Lark’s (above) Facebook page, the musicians did several school visits, and there were THOUSANDS of tweets from supposedly blase high schoolers who were totally excited that the MINNESOTA ORCHESTRA musicians were there. I think a lot of the musicians like doing that (within reason . . .) and certainly much more than being forced to be background music for corporate soirees in the remodelled Orchestra Hall.

      And as far as “nonprofits” go – well, one of the largest healthcare corporations is headquartered in the Twin Cities, and it’s technically a nonprofit at the top level (and the CEO was paid hundreds of millions of dollars per year). So that whole “charity” thing is certainly used as a point of contention. Because, you know, the corporate millionaires are lockstep with the “regular folks” in decrying the greed and extravagance of lazy musicians. Just like those who vote against their best interest.

Comments are closed.

Send this to a friend