Is it time for the Revolution?

Newsflash – Endowments are down the toilet; Arts orgs. are laying off people at record pace; donations are down; the NYCity Opera got sold a bag of rotten turnips; ponzi scheems are playing havoc with donors; orchestras/dnace companies/opera companies/etc. are folding ……… Folks, is it time for the next Revolution?

In all seriousness the economic mess that we’re in is one for the record books, but could it be that Arts organizations have been heading towards this meltdown for most of the last 30 years, at least?  Take the economic model that we use to perform and promote music – the world of the non-profit organization.  In classical music we depend on large donations from individuals and companies to fund our flagships – orchestras – and any case where actual ticket sales contribute more than 45% to the bottom line is an exception to the rule.  55% of your budget is subject to the whims of either a very few of the very wealthy, or the current CEO of Toys Are Us (used as the first example that came to mind).  Depending on the size of the organization, and the size of their hall, the administration of your average orchestra is charged with selling (more than) 6,000 tickets on an any given weekend just to keep up that particular end of the fiscal/Faustian bargain. Easier in large cities with a strong artistic history but pure hell in smaller ones.  Odds are said administration has seen a turnover of 20% or more this year alone, which is not surprising considering the long hours, low pay, and general disrespect directed towards anyone who works “upstairs.”

There also is usually a disconnect between the two parts of any orchestra that should have the most to gain from a strong mutual simpatico – the Board and the Musicians. The end goal of both entities should be a strong and lasting orchestra that serves the community for decades to come, but that goal is usually subsumed by both inter-organizational politics and systemic issues.  The problem with a Board of Directors in the non-profit sense is that Board members are not directly responsible for the well-being of the organization.  Yes, there is the idea of “governance” but in the end if the orchestra goes belly up a Board member can just move on.  Being on the Board is a volunteer situation without direct consequence to one’s long term career.  Your reputation might take a hit but you’ve still got your day job.  And, unfortunately, the job description does not require any knowledge of music, musicians, or how the music world functions.  This lack of understanding can be, and frequently is, appalling.  The love of something is not and should not be sufficient reason to find oneself in a governance position.  You need to have an understanding of how that thing that you love functions, and how it should be nurtured, before you should be allowed to make executive decisions concerning its future.  I love wine, but you definitely don’t want me tending your old vine zinfandel grapes for you.  And yet it is these Board members who by definition tell the administration how to run the organization.  In almost every situation that I have personally witnessed the people who are a part of the administration have a vastly larger understanding of the music business than do the Board members.  This strikes me as being somewhat bass-ackwards.

The other side of that coin are the Musicians.  God help us but we all know people who think that their contribution to the orchestra consists entirely of just showing up and playing, with the expectation that everything else that concerns the organization should be taken care of for them.  The phrase “The Board should just raise more money” has been used as a panacea for deep structural problems more than once in my 20-year professional career and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding as to the workings of inter-organizational dynamics, especially since we live in the non-profit world.  Why should the Board just raise more money if you have not given them a compelling reason to actually care?  Remember, please, that the odds run strongly towards said Board members having very little knowledge of your many years of lessons, your skipping classes @ Juilliard/Eastman/USC/Curtis/Cleveland/Cincinnati/etc.  conservatories so that you can practice, and the dedication necessary to get into a decent orchestra through that horrible audition process. From the outside – and a musicians whole life style/concept is utterly foreign to many Board members – it seems that Musicians (at least in the more stable orchestras) are pretty well paid (with fairly decent benefits) to sit around and do something on the weekend that’s supposed to be fun.   Just because we can tell that the 2nd Trombone player isn’t really up to snuff does not mean that the Board Chair can, and the idea of me practicing 3 hours a day in June so that I have a hope of getting together a recital in February, 2010 – the reality of that probably doesn’t make much sense to them.  We musicians have been doing what we do since we were 6 years old.  The Board chair decided on what he/she/it was going to do in life during grad school.  There’s a huge difference right there.

But if one looks at the organization as a whole then probably the greatest concern is the non-profit system itself.  The Board is not directly effected by something going horribly wrong (they have their day jobs), administrative salaries lag so far behind the for-profit world that rapid and debilitating turnover is inevitable and consistent quality performance is almost unheard of, and then there is the negotiation process between the orchestra and the musicians.  This last point seems designed to divorce the concepts of 1) long term fiscal health for the organization; and 2) the well being of its most important employees – the musicians themselves. This negotiation process is straight out of the for-profit world and generally has little to do with the disadvantages of the non-profit reality.  Who cares who “won” the negotiations if 1) the musician’s salaries/benefits become so paltry that they’re miserable and it becomes increasingly hard to fill open positions because people start bypassing your auditions (let alone the extra jobs they’ll have to take to make ends meet); or 2) the musicians are promised so much in salaries/benefits that the organization is forced into permanent stop-gap fundraising mode with a constant sense of living on a knife’s edge as the result?  What is too often ignored in the negotiation process is that the health of the organization and the health of the orchestra (meaning the musicians) is intertwined.  The us vs. them mentality of the 1950s is naïve when it comes to the reality of the 3rd millennium.  If the three stakeholders in the orchestra want to continue with that concept then, if you are lucky, that orchestra will survive, but it will never thrive.  The next depression/recession will find you in the exact same position that this one did, and good luck with that.

But it is not all doom and gloom.  In fits and starts there are organizations that have started to reach across the great divides to make enlightened decisions about their future, a process which has started a quiet revolution in how orchestras work.  The Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra started down this path a few years ago.  Whether what they have created is an unqualified success is something I shall leave to other writers, but they have definitely changed the formulae by which that organization functions.  Board, Staff, and Musicians must work together there – they have no other choice.  Other orchestras have also shown progress, some forced upon them by a realistic assessment of the current economic situation – both the Baltimore Symphony and the Philadelphia Orchestra musicians have bravely demanded to be part of the solution rather than the problem by challenging their organizations through volunteering pay cuts.  This will only lead to stronger organizations as all and sundry work together to get through the economic crisis we are currently facing.  There are other orchestras – Louisiana Philharmonic comes to mind – that have been forced into a creative business model due to their unique circumstances.  Whatever else you say about the LPO they have to survive in New Orleans, and there is no more unique place on this planet.

These orchestras are, for lack of a better term, looking for a new paradigm, one that includes all stakeholders – Board, Admin, and Musicians –  in the successes and failures of of the organization.  Eventually we can hope that these experiments morph into entirely different concepts in governance, with a brand new business model as the result.  Not so much revolution as evolution.  The major stumbling blocks are obvious (if grossly oversimplified): Board arrogance – “if this non-profit worked like a for-profit then everything would be fine!, and did I mention that the musicians seem awfully pampered?”; Staff burnout – “remind me why, exactly, I should work my ass off for people who on one side of the organization have contempt for anything I try to do and on the other side have contempt for any of my experience?”; Musician intransigence – “did I mention that if the Board just got to work they could raise billions of dollars which, of course, will go straight to my salary, without me raising a finger to help?”  Gross oversimplifications indeed, but good sociologist know that in every stereotype there is a grain of truth.

Perhaps a hybrid is necessary.  A for/non-profit combination where Musicians, Board, and Admin are all required to purchase stock in the orchestra so that there is true ownership of the organization.  No salaries, just dividends.  Of course if taken to the logical conclusion we might end up trading musicians like baseball players.  Could you imagine the headlines?  –

In a blockbuster trade announced today the L.A. Philharmonic acquired the 2nd Trumpet and Principal Bassoon of the New York City Opera in exchange for three Violins, a Viola substitute, an offstage percussionist, and a 3rd round pick from the 2011 graduating class of the Curtis Institute.  Since the NYC Opera is already out of the playoffs for a Grammy award the trade frees up salary cap room for them to land a promising Siegmund for the 2010-11 season.  The trade strengthens the L.A. Phils chance of making a push for the playoffs, although if a rash of injuries hits the string section there will be no one in the bullpen to turn to.  The trade is subject to the usual physical exams and drug tests, always a hazard in the Pro Music world.

That might be silly but it would be a sight better than the headlines we have almost grown used to seeing – “So & So Symphony Orchestra goes bankrupt.”