It seems that there is a lot of energy being put into finding ways to either shut an orchestra down or seriously compromise it’s existence. I don’t remember receiving an invitation to the “20,000 (Orchestra) Leagues Under the Sea” conference. The plans range from bankruptcy (Syracuse), canceling a season (Delaware), to trying to hire “new” musicians (Louisville). They all have one thing in common though…
The musicians are left in the cold both literally, and in terms of being included in the process.
I want to focus on Delaware and St Paul (which isn’t closed but is in for a rocky time ahead). In both cases it seemed that it was surprise, and when the details emerge and the one sided plans are put forth, the musicians are portrayed as greedy or unwilling to compromise! I mean if you wake up and half your house is gone, do you thank your lucky stars that the utility bills will drop as a result….and just gladly accept that half your house is gone? At the very least there has to be reaction time allowed, or better yet an inclusiveness in ALL the meetings i.e no closed doors. The best way forward is always one that is unified especially when reporting to the press. The press is not sunlight when it comes to these matters, they are a spotlight i.e they control the message, and bad news sells papers and/or ad space on-line.
St. Paul Chamber Orchestra:
Seen as a trail blazing model of success through collaboration and world class artistry for 5 decades. Graydon Royce outlines in some detail the issues facing the orchestra. This passage really stuck out for me (bold my emphasis):
When musicians signed a five-year deal in June 2007, they were promised that minimum annual salaries would increase to $78,223 by now. Recessionary pressure, reductions in contributed income and foundation money forced concessions that reduced those numbers significantly. According to the International Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians, the SPCO minimum was $66,700 for a 37-week season.
Under the current management offer, a comparable figure would be about $56,000 — based on 35 weeks at a $1,600 weekly minimum. A significant part of the discrepancy results from a management proposal to eliminate pay during the off-season.
My question to the board on this would be: so do you actually believe that musicians in the “off-season” just put their instruments away and then pick them up the first rehearsal back? There is no off-season, musicians have to continually practice and maintain their instruments. What, that has no value? Then there are some of demands in the board’s proposal that Drew reported in his Adaptistration post (bold my emphasis):
- Removing tenure.
- Securing the authority to dismiss a musician for any reason without a peer review process.
- Instituting a $500 fine for being late to rehearsals.
- Securing the authority to discipline musicians for multiple dress code violations.
OK, the last two are just silly and beyond ridiculous, but the first two points show a callousness that is bewildering and attempts to return to the Jurassic age of board/management dictatorship. So they announce that they are going to cut the musicians “off season” salary, remove their security as a musician altogether and then decide they can fire anyone at will (without any input from a peer review and for ANY reason), but of course they will expect that the musicians will be primed and at their best when the season starts! Not only that, they want to compress the weeks but still have them do as many performances! No matter what happens, they have just created a foundation of distrust, and poor morale for years to come. I have said this before, the true “deficit” in an organization that leads to a system failure is a lack of leadership, communication, trust and respect. This board is batting 1.000 on this, and is proof that their so called collaborative model was only a model which was put together without glue! They at least could have had a little more nuanced/humane approach by suggesting that there might need to be monetary concessions and not step in it with the whole “time off” thing! It is beyond not showing respect, it’s showing contempt.
Delaware Symphony:
As reported most recently in considerable detail in the Delaware Online. The Delaware Symphony went ahead and canceled next season…well the board did, again the musicians were not involved. Their recent history of not being able to fill positions, high turnover and what amounted to reckless gambling on future success turned a slow erosion into an avalanche, and maybe there was no other option, except again what about the musicians, what about seeking their opinions and ideas before canceling the season? It never ceases to amaze me that in an orchestra you have 70 – 100 talented and highly intelligent people, and that they are rarely if ever consulted in a crisis. Or in this case is it about the union contract expiring? Either way, pulling the plug like this is troubling especially with the way it was reported in an earlier article:
The orchestra planned to announce the suspension and reorganization to patrons in a letter today, Williamson said.
So why was this announced in the press first? The letter will make patrons angry enough, and it must be especially infuriating to those who bought season tickets, but to report/leak it to the press first? Look out! Then there is this from the same article (bold my emphasis):
In a letter that went to orchestra musicians on May 31, the DSO said it “cannot financially sustain our programming and cannot go forward with the next season as originally planned. (Lee) Williamson said Monday the symphony plans to seek money from “those individuals who are interested in the future of orchestral music in Delaware.”
Yes because who wouldn’t want to invest in something that instantly ceased to exist after getting a $400K lifeline? The return on that investment is that the orchestra might return? It’s a stretch, and now the sting in the tail is that Lee Williamson the Executive Director who oversaw the shut down after a deep analysis, is herself resigning
It’s now a complete mess, and David Amado and the musicians are adrift, not to mention that the state of Delaware has lost it’s namesake orchestra. I can only hope that there will be some sort of intervention and soon!
The fact is that there is no perfect model to operate or to cease operations, especially when an environment of distrust exists. In each case though the real trouble begins with a lack of communication followed by a communication to the press! It’s pretty much all downhill from there.
I am beginning to think that our industry needs to take a leaf out of Hollywood’s book, in that while marketing is important, public relations is even more so. Whilst the marketers job is to sell the product, a publicist’s job is to control the message. Message control in these situations is badly needed, so that both sides can have the opportunity to talk openly with each other and on a level playing field. I call once again on the League of American Orchestras (or for an independent body to form) to consider putting a crisis team together but one that includes the element of putting in place a public relations strategy. There are proven problem solvers out there (take the Inside the Arts bloggers for instance!) yet these orchestras are drowning and they don’t have the money to hire consultants for what they truly need. I would think even upping the League membership costs a little and having a team available as part of the benefits or at minimal cost as a result would meet with little or no resistance, if it meant the survival of an orchestra. For an art form that is all about discipline, it is so sad to see that the production of it is so undisciplined, help is needed and needed NOW!
Sad fact is, Ron, many orchestras have tightened their budgets by rolling pr and marketing into one department. But pr and marketing are two very different animals. Marketing brings revenue to the orchestra, and pr does not; so, pr is thought to be less important. Having been in that situation, before and after the combining of the two, I can tell you that the conflicts were huge, and contributed, in part, to the death of the orchestra.
I am posting a comment here from someone who emailed me that he is having troubling posting a comment, here it is verbatim, my reply will follow:
I am surprised that you are taking as gospel the third-hand account from Drew McManus’s blog of a musician member of the SPCO negotiating committee in describing the details of the SPCO management’s proposal to the musicians. Has any of this been verified since the blog post? From my own experience at the negotiating table (I’m currently ED of the Tacoma Symphony Orchestra), these kinds of details are easily misunderstood, distorted and misrepresented especially when the stakes are this high.
Second, I find the entire premise of your blog post – that the managements of these organizations are sitting around conspiring to screw the musicians and put the organization out of business – wrongheaded and inflammatory. Surely as a music director you know better. I will concede that the quality and effectiveness of nonprofit boards is all over the map, and the same is probably true of paid management staff. But none of these people go into this because they want to drive an institution under, and for a professional music director to imply as much in a public blog post is irresponsible.
Sincerely,
Andy Buelow
I think you misunderstood my overall premise, and that is message
control i.e blocking out the press and preventing leaks, I am simply commenting
on the information available…and that it shouldn’t be available! The ones who are irresponsible are those who let this information out for us to be able to write about, and no one is refuting what Drew is saying, he is very diligent about checking his sources and facts and immediately corrects things when they need to be corrected or when there is an update to report on. I can understand you are sensitive to any suggestion that management might be creating problems, but the focus in my post is on the boards of these organizations and their insistence on leaving the musicians out of the discussions before a proposal is brought forth or a cancellation is implemented
Ron
Andy’s latest response:
when you write “It seems that there is a lot of energy being put into finding
ways to either shut an orchestra down or seriously compromise it’s existence,”
the implication seems to be that the management is deliberately out to ruin the
organization. I see that isn’t what you meant. (By the way, “it’s” is a
contraction of “it is.”) I understand what you’re saying about the boards
leaving the musicians out of their discussions, and if that is true it is a
mistake, though unfortunately a common one. However, in order to “refute” what
Drew is saying the organization would have to allow itself to get drawn into
“negotiating in the media,” not something I would do.
It is very tempting for those of us outside of these organizations to make
judgments about what is happening within them, but I think we have to be very
cautious about doing so. It’s a little like taking sides in a marriage dispute.
Unless you’re inside the organization you really have no idea what the
board/management has or hasn’t done or how engaged or not engaged the musicians are. I’m not saying we should never comment at all, just that we need to
realize that in the end we only have a partial picture of what is going on.
I am a subscriber and donor to the SPCO. In my opinion, ticket prices in general are TOO low. And no, I am not wealthy. I believe the marketing plan was to build loyalty, but from my viewpoint it has only built complacency; thus the big financial problems.
Any orchestra’s most important product is its musicians. Full stop. Compromising the quality of musicianship will ultimately damage your product. I would rather pay more – and I also am a sustaining donor – to keep the quality of the musicians and guest artists up.
As far as dress infractions – well, in the scheme of things it’s of low importance compared with the rest of the issues, but I have always been concerned that there isn’t more consistency among the women musicians. The men have to wear a uniform and look professional. The women are sometimes all over the map and the one-sided variation does detract.